Members for Democracy Archive

Hey there,
I just wanted to create a thread where we could discuss the current Loblaws/RCSS situation. I am full time and it seems like there are a few changes.

No x mas bonus, we will get 1 in 5 sat and sun off(no sunday premium). 40 hour work week. We could have to work civic holiday. Overtime will be 1.5 times rate. max 5 weeks vacation. night premium is $1. Top rate for FT is $17.05
It won't be too bad for me as I am not a high paid full time so I won't lose wage.

It looks like the part time are really getting screwed. $11.49 top rate for clerks... $10 top rate for Gm workers. They have really bad scheduling, but max hours go to 28. Benifits are changed for part time which is one of the worst things of the deal for part timers.

The early retirement(55+) is 3 weeks per year PT (up to 10K) 4 weeks for FT (up to 75k)
Buydown is 3 weeks per year part time max 10K full time minimum is 10K.

That gives a bit of the run down I have so far. I haven't recieved all of the info yet. I have a question about sick days. I heard that we will lose them, but I have no read that yet(maybe someone has more info)
Hope you read this cointoss. I am also working for Loblaws in London

Hi Soitis,
Yes the employees are aware of this. Not all of them though. Mostly full time and senior part time. Secondly I am being told that we will not vote on anything. Our meeting is in 2 days (Sunday). I guess I will find out then.

A question for you now. I heard that Zehrs decided to go along with whatever the 1000a choice was. Is that true? From what I am being told this is a done deal and we just have to be informed on the arangments. One thing is for sure there will soon be a big change for all of us.

to 40 below: when 1977 had its meeting we didnt even know what it was about until we got there, thats when we were informed that your local had already agreed to the mandate.

we didnt get a chance to ask questions mainly because we didnt know what to ask. You on the other hand are at least forwarned about what to expect. Do us all a favor and ask the questions we didnt. Get as much info as you can before voting on the deal.

One of the best questions to ask is HOW ARE THEY GOING TO ARRIVE AT THE FIGURES FOR THE BUYOUTS AND EARLY RETIREMENTS. No one will give us that info now that the deal has been voted on. Is there some kind of secret mathematical equation they are going to use so that no one is going to get what they think they are entitled to? Some of the people I have talked to say that it is going to be a straight forward so many weeks for each year you are there and others have said that they are going to only use the last 13 weeks that you have worked and average them out to arrive at a new much lower figure for a weekly amount. Make sure you get the answer for that question I have a feeling that we are all going to be surprised at the answer and we sure as heck arent going to get what we think. Let us know after your meeting what answers you get.

Lets start a decertification drive.......any contract over 3 years in length is open to a "raid" on it's anniversary after 3 years.all we need is 40% to sign cards. the first step is a contact in every loblaws in local 1000a.then to find another union willing to take us on.if they won't give us a vote we can find aunion that will.

The 1000A local has a lot of explaining to do. Their directors vote of yes influenced the 1977 vote. I for one felt that once we were divided (Loblaw and Zehrs workers) then we didn't have a chance in hell of challenging this spiral down. And our local making the 1000A acceptance known took the steam out of any movement to go up against LCL east.
Let us know bb if 1000A local uses the Zehrs vote as a reason they did not take the mandate to their people. If they do, then at least you will know that they are putting the cart before the horse.
I for one am convinced that our union as a whole are not fighters for us, but are first concerned about a healthy growing union (with union dues to match) and do not want to piss off Loblaws possibly losing voluntary union recognition for new stores.

Here is a link to the RCSS agreement out west where employer concessions roam free.

Hope it helps.

40 below My spouse works for Zehrs so we are getting it from both sides. What about Fortinos. Are they being put into rcss and if so at what threat , just the department store agreement appendix. I still hate that we had three years to go and now the company gets what it wants and the union gets what it needs and our standard of living drops. I want to see some militancy shown towards wal-mart by the ufcw.

i think we should boot the union out get caw in there who wont jerk any employees around ,are union has sold us before we even knew what hit us as long as they keep getting there 7.50$ a week they dont care at all ,and im sure all the big wigs in loblaws wont take a pay cut instead they will get a raise ,in reality they shouldnt have signed a 6 year contract should of been 3 years and now they want to open it so you tell me the union aint kissing ngco ass, think it's been in the works for at least a year all i got to say thank the union another pissed off employee

We tried to vote in the CAW but when it came time to count the votes the UFCW challenged the vote and won. They used a letter of agreement between the 2 unions back in 98 agreeing to a no-raid clause. The 1000a contract is 6 years with a sort of open period after 3 years for some negotiations IE:make concessions or we wont voluntarily recognize you for our new super-warehouse we have being built in ajax. Of the more than 700 employees at Malplegrove warehouse ,only 50 are left of the original 1000a members{who got to bid 1st on choice jobs even though their warehouses were not closing}, the rest of the employees "inherited" the 6 year deal because of loblaws VR agreement.Employees that came from non 1000a facilities were stripped of their senority,some having over 15 years, and were told that when applying for global postings they were only allowed to do so with the 1000a senority they had accumulated and not the overall company service.We pay the same dues as our union brothers that were fortunate enough to be a part of the grandfathering contract from day 1 yet someone whos work was transferred to the new building,and may have 20 years with the company , can only apply with their 1oooa time in to postings throughout the monopolized Loblaws warehouses.

To Here we go again: I arrived at the meeting late and forgot to ask your question about how the would arrive at the amount of money. However I would say that the answer is still unknown since the paperwork hasn't changed. So we will probably have to wait until we get packages in the mail to find out...

{here we go again}
Try this site for more info.
www.ufcwrealcanadian.ca

cointoss there will be no sick pay. You can get all this info at the site listed above http://www.ufcwrealcanadian.ca/

The first time someone said that the URL for the new Local 1000a web site was www.ufcwrealcanadian.ca I though they were kidding. But it's true. The local has included the name of the employer's new cheapy banner chain where it dropped its pants in order to get voluntary recognition. Sorry, to me that speaks volumes about the relationship between the local's leaders and the company or at least about their perception of the relationship. Why would you put the employer's name beside the union's name in the URL unless you perceive the relationship to be some kind of joint venture?!

I think we are getting closer and closer to the day when some agency or judicial body is going to have to draw the line at what constitutes a "union" and when and where a union loses the right to call itself that.

I'm also struck by the fact that almost every UFCW Canada local's web site features a big picture of the local pres who, in all but a few cases, looks smug, contented and - dare I say it - corpulent. Wehre do these smug shits get off thinking that they can impose their will on the union's members without even consulting with them first? If these guys perceive themselves as being partners with management, basically just a bunch of guys who smooth the path for the implementation of management decisions, at what point do they cease being a union?

I now have it one good authority that Local 1000a president Corporan has never been elected by the members (unless there has been an election very recently), yet feels quite alright giving his blessing to a "management decision" that will affect the members but about which they have never been consulted. How is this guy a representative of the people?

<Local 175>
Does anybody know with any certainty if the arrangements made with 1000a & 1977 will be extended to 175?

<Local 175>
I believe the only reason 175 has been a part of this, is because Loblaws/Zehrs-UFCW intends to extend 175's contract to cover the new RCSS banner store's.

The union website says there are no wage or benefit concessions to existing employees.And getting bumped is better than getting laid off,I think. And a fair number of people are gonna take those packages so lots of positions may actually become available in the next year or so.Loblaws wages are already all over the board,so whats another wage teir? Two people doing the exact same job can already have a 5 dollar difference in their rates depending on when they were hired. If somebody wants to fluff pillows at Loblaws for 11 bucks an hour,more power to them.

I'm wondering if katnjack could explain what is meant by "if people want to fluff pillows at Loblaws for 11 bucks an hour more power to them"?

Also, bumping may be preferable to getting laid off, but how do you know that anyone is going to be laid off?

Sort of off topic, but not really;

quote:

---

Loblaw Companies Limited 2003 Second Quarter Report

TORONTO, July 17 /CNW/ -

MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Loblaw Companies Limited's ("Loblaw" or the "Company") second quarter 2003 basic net earnings per common share increased 22.2% to 66 cents from the 54 cents earned in 2002. The second quarter 2003 basic net earnings per common share included approximately 3 cents per common share from the positive net after-tax effect of the stock-based compensation cost net of the gain from the
fair value impact of the equity forwards. Sales increased 9.2% to $5.8 billion and operating income increased 15.7% to $317 million. Loblaw continues to focus on the execution of its operating and financial strategies.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

SALES
Sales for the second quarter increased 9.2%, to $5.8 billion, from $5.3 billion in the same quarter last year. All regions across the country experienced sales growth consistent with expectations. Volume growth in some regions outpaced sales growth reflecting a strategic investment in lower prices.

The increase in second quarter sales resulted from a 5.8% same-store sales growth in the quarter and an increase of 2.2 million square feet of net retail square footage related to the 71 new corporate and franchised stores opened net of 55 stores closed during the latest four quarters. During the second quarter of 2003, 12 new corporate and franchised stores were opened and 8 stores were closed resulting in a net increase of .5 million square feet.

For the first half of the year, sales of $11.2 billion were 8.9% ahead of last year resulting from a year-to-date same-store sales growth of 5.6% and an increase in net retail square footage during the latest four quarters as noted above. In the first two quarters, a total of 25 new corporate and franchised stores were opened and 23 stores were closed, resulting in a cumulative net increase of .6 million square feet.

Consistent with 2002 and the first quarter, national food price inflation for 2003 remained low with some increases in the bakery and grocery categories partially offset by a decrease in the produce category.

OPERATING INCOME

Operating income for the second quarter increased $43 million, or 15.7%, to $317 million, including income of $5 million related to the stock-based compensation cost net of the gain from the fair value impact of the equity forwards. Operating margin for the quarter improved to 5.5% from 5.2% in 2002.

Operating income for 2003 year-to-date increased $79 million, or 15.6%, to $587 million, with an operating margin of 5.3% as compared to 5.0% in the corresponding period in 2002. All regions across the country realized earnings improvements over 2002. EBITDA margin for the quarter and year-to-date improved to 7.0% and 6.8% from 6.7% and 6.5% in 2002, respectively. An improvement in overall sales mix management at the store level, a focus on administrative cost control and operating efficiencies and reduced product costs from buying synergies continued to contribute to the improvement in margins.

INTEREST EXPENSE

For the second quarter, interest expense increased $5 million, or 12.8%, to $44 million from $39 million in the same period in 2002. Interest on long term debt for the second quarter increased $4 million to $60 million as a result of an increase in average long term borrowing levels. Other long term interest for the same period includes the net positive effect of the Company's interest rate swaps, cross currency basis swaps and equity forwards of $11 million (2002 - $7 million). Net short term interest expense of $1 million resulted from a decrease in average short term United States investment rates and higher average short term Canadian borrowing levels and rates and compares to income of $3 million in the same quarter last year. During the second quarter, $6 million (2002 - $7 million) of interest expense was capitalized to fixed assets. Interest expense year-to-date increased $9 million to $82 million from $73 million in 2002 as a result of an increase in average long term and short term borrowing levels.

INCOME TAXES

Loblaw's effective income tax rate decreased to 33.3% from 36.6% for the second quarter and to 34.1% year-to-date from 36.8% in the same period in 2002 as a result of declining Canadian federal and provincial income tax rates and the income tax impact of fair valuing the equity forwards.

NET EARNINGS

Net earnings for the second quarter increased $33 million, or 22.1%, to $182 million from $149 million in 2002 and increased 21.1% to $333 million year-to-date. Basic net earnings per common share for the second quarter increased 12 cents, or 22.2%, to 66 cents from 54 cents in 2002 and increased 21 cents, or 21.0%, to $1.21 year-to-date.

FINANCIAL CONDITION

FINANCIAL RATIOS

In line with 2002, Loblaw continued to maintain a consistent financial position into the first half of 2003. The net debt to equity ratio of .80:1 at the end of the second quarter of 2003 compared to .79:1 in the same period of 2002. The net debt to equity ratio at the end of the first and second quarter is typically higher than at year end due to cyclical fluctuations in working capital. Consistent with prior years' trends, Loblaw expects its net debt to equity ratio to improve throughout the remainder of the year. Shareholders' equity increased $210 million year-to-date, or 5.1%, to $4.3 billion. The interest coverage ratio improved to 7.2 times compared to 7.0 times at the end of the second quarter in 2002 due to an improvement in operating income in excess of the increase in interest expense.

The success of Loblaw's capital investment program is demonstrated by the rolling year return on average total assets at the end of the second quarter of 2003, increasing to 14.1% compared to 13.7% for the comparable period of 2002 and to 13.7% at year end 2002. The rolling year return on average shareholders' equity at the end of the second quarter, increased to 19.4% compared to 17.9% for the comparable period of 2002 and to 18.9% at year end 2002, mainly due to increased earnings.

COMMON DIVIDENDS

As declared by Loblaw's Board of Directors in the second quarter, a quarterly dividend of 15 cents per common share was paid on July 1, 2003.

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES

In the second quarter of 2003 cash flows from operating activities were $338 million compared to $384 million in the second quarter of 2002. This decrease resulted mainly from a change in non-cash working capital, primarily accounts receivable and inventories. On a year-to-date basis, cash flows from operating activities were $159 million compared to $121 million in 2002. The year-to-date improvement resulted mainly from an increase in net earnings before depreciation partially offset by an increase in pension contributions.

The cash flows from operating activities for the remainder of 2003 are expected to fund a substantial portion of Loblaw's 2003 capital investment program of approximately $1.3 billion.

CASH FLOWS USED IN INVESTING ACTIVITIES

In the second quarter of 2003 cash flows used in investing activities were $86 million compared to $14 million in 2002. On a year-to-date basis, cash flows used in investing activities were $220 million compared to $256 million in 2002.

Capital investment amounted to $252 million (2002 - $178 million), for the second quarter and $425 million (2002 - $353 million) year-to-date, as Loblaw continues its commitment to maintain and renew its asset base and invest for growth across Canada.

In the second quarter President's Choice Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, securitized $75 million (2002 - $74 million) of credit card receivables, under its securitization program, and $154 million (2002 - $74 million) year-to-date. The securitizations yielded a minimal loss based on assumptions consistent with those disclosed in Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements included in the Company's 2002 Annual Report.

CASH FLOWS USED IN FINANCING ACTIVITIES

In the second quarter of 2003 cash flows used in financing activities were $36 million compared to $231 million in 2002. The change is primarily due to the issuance of long term debt in the quarter. On a year-to-date basis, cash flows from financing activities were $374 million compared to $327 million in 2002.

During the first quarter of 2003, Loblaw issued $200 million of 6.54% Medium Term Notes ("MTN") due 2033 pursuant to its 2001 Base Shelf Prospectus. Loblaw's 2001 Base Shelf Prospectus expired on May 24, 2003. During the second quarter of 2003, Loblaw filed a new Base Shelf Prospectus, which permits the Company to issue an aggregate principal amount of up to $1.0 billion of MTN. Under this new 2003 Base Shelf Prospectus, Loblaw issued $200 million of 6.05% MTN due 2034 during the quarter and subsequent to quarter end issued $55 million of 5.86% MTN due 2043. The Company also repaid its $100 million 6.60% MTN that matured during the quarter. The Company currently has $745 million of MTN available to be issued.

During the first quarter, Loblaw renewed its Normal Course Issuer Bid ("NCIB") to purchase on the Toronto Stock Exchange or enter into equity derivatives to purchase up to 13,765,935 of its common shares, representing approximately 5% of its common shares outstanding. Loblaw, in accordance with the rules and by-laws of the Toronto Stock Exchange, may purchase its shares at the then market prices of such shares.

During the first quarter, Loblaw purchased for cancellation 730,000 of its common shares for $41 million and entered into equity forwards to buy 1,103,500 of its common shares, pursuant to its NCIB.

RISKS AND RISK MANAGEMENT

Operating and financial risks and risk management strategies, as disclosed in the Company's 2002 Annual Report on pages 33 to 38 of the Management's Discussion and Analysis ("MD&A"), remain substantially unchanged.

ACCOUNTING STANDARDS IMPLEMENTED IN 2003

Effective December 29, 2002, Loblaw implemented Accounting Guideline 14 - "Disclosure of Guarantees", issued by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (see Note 9 to the unaudited interim period consolidated financial statements). This guideline requires the Company to disclose significant information about guarantees it has provided without regard to the likelihood that the Company will have to make any payments under those guarantees.

OUTLOOK

Loblaw continues to focus on the execution of its operating and financial strategies. Sales and earnings growth rates for the remainder of 2003 are expected to remain strong, supported by a solid financial position, good cash flow generation and the continuation of its capital investment program.

(signed) (signed)
W. Galen Weston John A. Lederer
CHAIRMAN PRESIDENT

Toronto, Canada
July 17, 2003

---

letter of understanding #52
"the employer will make the following lump sum payment for education and communication initiatives.these lump sum paymentsare in addition to current education contributions.the ppayment of $150,000 shall be made in july of 2003,2004 and 2005."

this info was not made readily availabe at the meeting on Thurs.

From today's Toronto Star :

Loblaws union sets superstore wage cuts

quote:

---

The union representing thousands of workers at Loblaws stores in Ontario has agreed to wage and benefit concessions at new superstores in exchange for automatic recognition as Canada's largest grocery chain prepares to compete with Wal-Mart.

The United Food and Commercial Workers union held meetings across the province this week to notify members of the deal it signed with Loblaw Cos. Ltd. on July 11 after months of negotiations.

In Toronto on Thursday night, some members applauded leaders of their local for meeting head-on the threat of the non-unionized U.S. retailer. Its entry into the Canadian grocery market is widely seen as imminent. Others demanded to know why they had not been allowed to vote on the deal, which their local agreed to halfway through a contract that expires in 2006.

---

it seems all the i's have been dotted and all the t's have been crossed on this " deal of the century ". Now , when do we find out when all this is going to be implented?? It's been 6 or more weeks since we had our "vote" ( for local 1977) and we have not heard word one from anyone. We have nowhere to go to get this info , the union head office is not forthcoming at all. I for one would like to know how long it will be before all this takes place. Has anyone heard of anymore meetings ?? Are we going to be notified by snail mail ??

i just logged onto our unions website(1977) and they thanked me for my attendance at the meeting and for voting on such an important issue letting me know that my input was greatly appreciated. Sure , let me vote on a done deal before I even vote. Some input, like I had a choice as to the outcome. They also stated that they will keep me informed as to the next step. Another case of hurry up and wait.

Anyone see which London England chain galen just bought for 1.4 billion cash the oth day?????!!!!!!! WOW

According to another poster on the "1977 Deal" topic, there were fireworks at the 1000a meeting in Toronto last nite. I sure hope Kevins OK !!!!lol

And what became of the old Clifford Evans Training Centre? Might it have become a bargain for Local 1977 or someone else? Does the Training fund still own that bit of real estate? If it does, is it really a training fund?

What am I forgetting? NO Christmas bonus, max 5 weeks vacation, break every 4 hours, no sick days, and every benifit cut back. Wages rolled back, my job gone to a non-union job. Thank you ufcw, can I stand up now?

In june 1989 when the ink was barely dry on the first BC Real Canadian Superstore 1989 to 1993 CA, a secret contract was signed by a UFCW president. That contract bound all Superstore employees for an additional four years.

The deal was cooked to prevent any other union from getting hold of the members and bettering their working conditions. If the members tried to switch unions, the new union would have been stuck with the secret agreement.

The members didn't know about the agreement and certainly didn't get a say in it.

However that agreement wasn't surprising when one considers how the UFCW did friendly business with Loblaw.

When one looks at UFCW Canada policies one can only laugh or cry at the hypocracy in what the UFCW claims to stand for and what it really is.

The UFCW has a sick relationship with employers, and I don't think anything is about to change. This letter gives you an insider's view of how and why deals are cut.

Comment to all affected by this Loblaws/RCSS agreement:

I personally feel that we've all been screwed. UFCW has literally caved in to the demands of Galen and company. Sacrificing our sick days and Xmas bonuses, Loblaws pockets close to $3 million in one year (according to Union Book re: full-time employees). That isn't even considering what they are going to save with the reduced benefits and hourly wages. I understood that I (the union) was going to be asked for a mandate on the proposed new contract. Boy, am I naive. The union, in turn, has the audacity to increase our union dues. How dare they!

If this contract is implemented I suggest that each and every one of us show up for the next elections for our union executives. And then we can make our voices heard. In my opinion, the union has sacrificed and conceded everything that they have gained--supposedly on our behalf--over the last 25+ years.

If we remain with the CFCW for three more years, to the end of our current contract(?), CFCW have stated they have gained an unprecedented achievement in getting a guarantee from the company that there shall be no concessions on benefits or wages in the next contract. What happens if the next contract is for 1 year?

My belief is that the union has shown a huge weakness, and the company, I am sure, also recognizes this. I guarantee the company will come back to haunt the union, realizing the union is totally lacking in balls. Right now the company is a major winner; the union is a close second; and, sadly, the membership are also-rans.

We probably should be considering looking at another union for representation. However, it is probably smart to stay away from these big ones; they all seem to move in the same circles.

From the Inside Toronto website:

Loblaws may build superstores

quote:

---

But an analyst said the company would be moving toward superstores even without the Wal-Mart threat.

"Loblaw wouldn't be doing anything different if there wasn't a threat from Wal-Mart and superstores," David Brodie, an analyst with Research Capital Corp., said. "They'd still be spending every nickel of cash flow, plowing it into capital expenditures to expand their capacity and going into general merchandise."

---

quote:

---

The union president enlisted a call to arms from his membership Thursday, suggesting an action plan to promote the benefits of a union to Wal-Mart employees. The initiative is already under way in British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec, he said.

"We're slowly but surely breaking the tide of getting Wal-Mart workers to understand the importance of a union. We'll be going after Wal-Mart with hired organizers about why they need to unionize. Be part of labour history," he said, adding discussions are also planned with employees of competitors Sobeys and Longos, which are both non-unionized.

---

Be part of labour history?
Holy crap!

There are no elections in 1000a.At least not for the general membership.call the union office and ask for the international constitution, canadian constitution and the local constitution, all by-laws and an audited financial statement as required by ontario law. 905-850-0096 toll free 1-800-637-5936

I wonder if there is away to introduce all the dirt that went on "out west" ,the 1518,777, pension theft etc..... In my DFR now.There are a lot of similar circumstances,"New" real canadian superstores, voluntary recognition,Loblaws and a cut-rate deal.I don't think the OLRB would look to favouably on any of that crap.

In 2001, 27 union officials collected just under 3.4 million in salary from all the members. These same people are asking those with little to settle for nothing????

The Wal-Mart scare is more valid in the US than in Canada. UFCW Canada argues that Wal-Mart is the threat when in fact the Real Canadian Superstore and other big-box, low-wage unionized operators are the real threat. What's surprising is that the UFCW Canada has created its own threat by it's collapse in the face of any and every concessionary demand placed before it by Loblaw Companies.

Though the capitulation didn't start with this deal, it is indicative of how low the UFCW had sunk in subserviance to Loblaw Companies by the late 1980s.

Here's an analysis of how UFCW Canada's sweetheart partnering affected Canada's retail grocery agreements. It's also a good indicator of where they will head in light of the sweetheart, cheapo deal (one that matches non-union Wal-Mart's in the GTA).

quote:

---

…EXAMPLES OF THE LABOR MARKET IMPACT OF WAGE
DIFFERENTIALS – CASES FROM CANADA

Loblaws, a Canadian grocery and retail chain, opened Real Canadian Super Stores (RCSS) in Canada several years ago. RCSS combines food and discount retail under one roof, paying wages that are typical of the discount retail industry, as do Supercenters in the United States. RCSS entered the market in Alberta in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Safeway has been the primary unionized supermarket in Alberta for years, and Safeway wages in Alberta were considerably higher than RCSS. By the early 1990s, competition with the lower labor-cost RCSS began to have a dramatically negative impact on Safeway profits.

Safeway executives estimated that the wage gap between their employees and RCSS workers was between $8.00 and $12.00 per hour in Canadian dollars. In 1993, Safeway concluded it could no longer compete without drastically cutting pay and benefits. Management presented employees with two choices – either Safeway would cut its losses and leave the Alberta market, or cut pay and benefits by the equivalent of $5.00 per hour (Canadian).

Eventually, the unionized employees agreed to the pay and benefit cuts. Safeway implemented the pay cuts both by reducing pay and benefits and by buying out the contracts of 4,000 experienced employees and replacing those workers with persons earning approximately $6.00 per hour with no benefits.11 In 1997, Safeway employees went on strike in an effort to restore wage and benefit concessions that were part of the 1993 agreement.

The strike ended without the union regaining the wage and benefit concessions that were part of the 1993 agreement.

In 1996, similar competition between grocery chains with dramatically different labor costs sparked a labor dispute in Vancouver, British Columbia. RCSS operated with a lower cost [UFCW] contract than either of the two primary Vancouver chains -- Safeway and Overwaitea (a Canadian firm). Safeway estimated the labor cost differential, including benefits, at $11.58 (Canadian) per hour. The cost differential greatly reduced Safeway's and Overwaitea's ability to compete in the Vancouver market, and from 1985 through 1996 RCSS gained nine percentage points in market share in that urban area. Having already faced similar competition with RCSS in Alberta, Safeway was committed to closing the labor cost gap before profits turned to staggering losses. After a bitter strike, Vancouver Safeway employees accepted a new contract that reduced pay and benefits.

As another example, A&P faced similar competition from low labor-cost competitors in greater Toronto in the early 1990s. Non-union competitors such as Sobey's had lower labor costs, as did the "No Frills" warehouse grocery chain operated by Loblaw's. (The "No Frills" stores were unionized, but under a different contract that allowed lower wages and benefits compared with what A&P's union contract required.)

A&P felt that it was at a competitive disadvantage and forced a strike to gain contract terms more comparable to the lower wages paid to the non-union and "No Frills" competitors. The strike lasted from November, 1993 to February, 1994. The resolution was a compromise that did not fully satisfy either party. A&P came out of the strike in a weaker position, and was less able to renovate, expand, and open new stores than it would have otherwise. The union wages and benefits were also downgraded as part of the resolution of the labor strife.

Supermarket News stated in June of 1996 that, 'Partly because of the residual effect of that strike, A&P converted 19 of its Ontario stores to Food Basics, a lower-cost format that it operates under a separate bargaining agreement.'

The lesson is that major grocery chains will compete, and compete vigorously, for market share and profit when faced with low-cost competition. That competition takes the form of both short-term and long-term labor disputes. In the short-run, the Canadian chains (A&P, Canada Safeway, and Overwaitea) sought immediate wage and benefit concessions once competitors with lower labor costs became clear competitive threats.

The short-run concessions often took the form of buy-outs of more experienced, higher-paid workers combined with a two-tiered wage structure that included substantially less valuable pay and benefit packages for new hires. In some instances those buy-outs were combined with wage and benefit reductions for existing employees. In most of the labor disputes, the chains involved sought immediate labor cost reductions. For example, in Alberta Safeway appeared to try to close between forty percent and sixty percent of the labor cost gap with RCSS. (Recall that the 1993 concessions reduced Safeway labor costs by roughly $5.00 per hour, approximately forty to sixty percent of the estimated $8.00 to $12.00 per hour gap.)

Yet that estimate ought not be taken as firmly indicative of the type of response that would occur in other markets. Given the dynamics of union bargaining, it is possible that the concessions observed in Canada were interim steps, and that grocery chains will continue to seek labor cost reductions until they have parity with low cost competitors.

Labor represents approximately 60% of the controllable costs (excluding the cost of product) in the grocery industry, so competition often takes the form of meeting a rival's labor costs. Safeway argued in British Columbia that parity with RCSS in new hire labor costs was the only fair solution to the labor dispute.18 A&P converted 19 stores in Ontario to a low-cost format to take advantage of the lower-cost union contract for such stores.19

The mediator of the labor dispute in British Columbia was quoted after the strike as saying, 'Safeway and Overwaitea are legitimately frustrated with the substandard collective agreement in place between Real Canadian Superstore and UFCW Local 777 and that issue must be addressed.'20 Overall, the experience in Canada suggests that major chains will seek parity with lower labor cost competitors, if not immediately then certainly in the long run through mechanisms such as two-tiered contracts that reduce costs for new hires or changes in collective bargaining agreements.

The ability of grocery chains to obtain wage and benefit parity with low cost competitors hinges on the relative bargaining power of a chain and the union in any particular market.

Yet the evidence suggests that wage and benefit differentials across stores that compete vigorously with each other will lead to substantial downward wage pressure until those differentials are closed….

---

The 1999 report from which this is taken overestimates the impact of Wal-Mart Supercenters in the US. The predicted impact hasn't been as great as expected, but it does show that the UFCW has little power to organize non-union competition and routinely agrees to lower wages and benefits to the lowest level paid by either Union (UFCW) or non-union competitors.

David Noonan, son of the high-ranking UFCW official who thought that the $300,000 UFCW race car was a good idea; declared candidate for the Brant NDP nomination, UFCW "youth committee" memeber and UFCW Local 1977 vice-president writes a letter to the editor of the Financial Post. .

quote:

---

Loblaw's debateable deal
After reading the column regarding the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Loblaw companies (A Sweetheart Deal, Hugh Finnamore, July 25), it is obvious to me that Mr. Finnamore is jumping to conclusions on what is being offered to the UFCW members.

I am an executive member of this union and I can tell you we are not taking concessions. Actually, no concession clause came with this deal. What Mr. Finnamore is confused about is that those who decide to go to these new superstores will be at a different rate of pay, but are given healthy packages if they do so. Also, those who stay at their current Loblaws store will keep their wages and benefits as is.

There are also criteria that must be met for the Loblaw company to covert each store to a superstore. So there is no "mid-contract slashing" going on here. I, along with many of the membership, voted to give my union president a mandate to negotiate an appendix for those who decide to move to the new superstores. More of our membership voted at these meetings than at our last ratification meeting, and 91% of this UFCW membership voted in favour of this mandate.

David Noonan, UFCW member and Zehrs Markets worker, Brantford, Ont.

- - -

HUGH FINNAMORE RESPONDS: I base my assertions on UFCW members' comments, official UFCW publications and on my several years of experience as a UFCW official. Mr. Noonan is no doubt duty-bound to defend his deal. However, by the UFCW's own account, 31 stores are slated for change, now through 2004. The UFCW says, "many UFCW members will be affected and soon," and "all employees in conventional banners are potentially affected." In fact, the UFCW says, "it's happening now!"

Top-rate employees are paid up to $20 per hour to stock non-food items. Under the new deal, that work and new work will transfer to store areas with a top rate of $10 per hour. Most part-timers in these new areas will have to work 10 years or more to reach that top rate. These non-food positions will not be open to former food clerks except at the lower rates. Part-time food clerks who transfer to a new store will have their wages capped at a top rate $5.50 less than a full-time clerk doing the same work. Mr. Noonan says there are some protections for select employees, and he is correct. However, in the end the slashed rates will affect many current employees provided they don't accept money to quit. Those rates have the potential to affect thousands of present and future employees -- potentially up to 7,000 in the next year. The UFCW says the slated 31 stores are only the beginning. The deal was bargained in secret, and the UFCW states that Loblaw, "refuses to offer the agreement if [the] union requires a formal membership vote." There was no "ratification" and the true text of the deal has not been released to the members.

---

From a prescient June 25/03 post by weiser in another older thread:

quote:

---

Think of it this way. Wal-Mart should be the one worrying.

Wal-Mart Supercenters have lots of groceries. There are no plans for Supercenters in Canada. Sams Clubs are a threat to Costco, not Loblaw. However, Loblaw wants to get into general merchandise in a big way. That's the reason behind the RCSS format.

It isn't because Wal-Mart is comming after Loblaw with groceries, it's Loblaw going after Wal-Mart's general merchandise business.

Wal-Mart isn't becoming more like Loblaw, Loblaw is becoming more like Wal-Mart.

AND THE FRIGGING UFCW IS HELPING THEM DO IT!

---

From the Aug 6/03 Financial Post:

Who should fear Wal-Mart invasion?
(Sorry rv, there's that war talk again!)

quote:

---

Canadian retailers are trembling at the upcoming launch of Wal Mart Corp.'s membership warehouse, but Costco Wholesale Corp. is likely the first to suffer.

---

You might also want to give this a read. In it we discussed the Dunmore decision. The court had some really interesting things to say about what unions are all about in that one too. There are a couple of other cases cited as well.

It would be very helpful to me if one of our 'Loblaws Head Office deep thinkers' or 'UFCW super negotiators' could explain to me how me spending 4 out of 5 Saturdays & Sundays at work away from my family (while the above groups are at their cottages) will help keep Walmart from being successful in this market? Zehrs has gone out of its way in the last few years to make every employee work the worst possible schedule that the contract allows. I am sure they are licking their chops at this shit.

When i was working for the fortinos warehouse before the transfer to Maplgrove we were under the same 175 contract as in the stores. The company line was always,"Hey,,this is a weekend business you know!" That aside, the most entertaining line in the contract was that instead of stating the obvious; you gotta work 4 out of 5 saturdays, the union worded it like a triumphant tale of a battle that ended with the company cowering to the ufcw and buckling to the ground as the ominous voice of the union came down from above to say that," (say in a Heston voice) All employees shall have 1 in 5 saturdays OFF !!!!) I just love semantics.

my wife tells me Zehrs is opening a store in kitchener that was closed for renovations called stanley park. guess what it will be, a zehrs, NO RCSS. They had it listed in the "offer/ threat" as going YIG or RCSS. I guess they have screwed as many as they have to. I think that this is bad faith bargaining. They told us no more loblaws or zehrs and here they go changing their minds. I know the union will say we are better off with zehrs, and they are right, but it still is proff of bad faith.

So Stanley Park Zehrs is going to be a conventional store???
Yet this is what the handy dandy little guide said that we voted on:

"The Company is no longer going to build large conventional Loblaws, Zehrs and Fortinos stores."

"It's happening now! The following stores were going to be large conventional stores but have now been put on hold:
*1000A:Ajax, Ottawa: Richmond & Kirkwood St.
*1977: Midland, +STANLEY PARK+
*175:Leamington: Zehrs; Windsor: Walker Road
Loblaws; Ottawa: Blair & Ogilvie Loblaws."

"Kitchener:STANLEY PARK NSR (Oringinal Intention Zehrs) (Option 1 YIG) (Option 2 RCSS)"

"The company will not be opening conventional replacement stores for those stores slated to close."

"Announced in December that the stores of the future in Ontario will be RCSS--as has been happening for several years in Western and Atlantic Canada--or other non-union format such as YIG."

So according to the Slide presentation conventional stores are gone, Gone, GONE!!! Yet here we have a brand new conventional store coming. Shows that the company was not so serious about the need for this change. And our union locals believed them.

One more point that burns my ass. The slide show presentation said: "No Local can bind another. Each will make its own decision." 1977 at least had a vote. But right when they announced the 1000A accepted the compromise(the directors on behalf of their membership) that changed the 1977 vote. Sure we could have voted it down, but at that point Loblaw Co. had the Loblaws name. WE WERE DIVIDED AND CONQUERED!!! All the company had to do is use the Loblaw name. Some vote. Someone needs their ass kicked.

There's leadership and leadershit.

Leadership comes in many forms. Leaders are dependent on their followers; leaders have a connection to their followers;leaders have a grasp on the true needs of their followers and work hard to satisfy those needs.

Leadershit comes in one form but attracts many personalities--tyrants, despots, dictators greedy pretenders etc. I love the quote in another thread that has a UFCW president saying, "leadership is taking people where they don't want to go." In effect that's a prime example of leadershit. It's more like the dork saying, "leadershit is taking people where I want to go, or where I'm told to take them."

The employers use union leadershit experts to drag employees where the employer wants them to be. Leadershit requires the liberal use of lies, manipulation, half-truths, coercion and gall--lots of it.

Ships float, can follow a charted course and provide confortable passage to desired destinations.

Shit stinks.

quote:

---

Leadership is taking your members where they don't want to go, and ultimately to be proven right.

---

This is one of my favourite ufcw-isms - one of those grandiose statements that makes no sense but says so much about the UFCW's commitment to undemocratic unionism. I've often wondered just how you go about being proven right after you've taken the members where they don't want to go. I guess in the undemocratic model, what the members think about it doesn't count so that only leaves the president's opinion - and he's always right.

In the alternative if, once you've taken the members to where they don't want to go, many of them become unemployed and are no longer members, then their views don't count. Same result.

My bad,,,I dont think it is tippet richardson,,thats a moving company,,lol,,,I will get more info and post it tomorrow.

Cant find anything on Tippet Benton,,are you sure thats it??? At work today i am going to try to get a copy of the staement released by Mr. Lederer,,or whatever his name is and post it on here....wish me luck,,,lol

Thats it Sig,,, u da man....

LCE distribution has decided to go to a third party to distribute their general merchandise, resulting in the closure of the pinebush location

This is the 2nd time in a month that a branch of our business has gone 3rd party, CFS (cross docking) has also gone 3rd party to Newcastle logistics on Millcreek Dr. from Erin Mills distribution. 1000A has done nothing to stop this!

do we see a trend here? who's next? frozen? deli?

I wonder if the company will staff Ajax the same way Maple Grove was, that if Ajax plans are off the ground yet. I heard it is on hold

At least you guys will have the right to a ratification process and a strike vote.......unless the company demands no vote and just ammends your agreement.Voluntary recognition is a pretty big carrot for the machine heads to grab and screw anyone in the way.

Just a note: the Midland store is a RCSS, it open in October. As for the Stanely Park, that too will be a RCSS, postings went up for that one a while ago.

Are you sure that Stanley Park is going RCSS. My wife says the postings say Zehrs for Stanley Park and Zehrs/RCSS for Midland.

I hear that they are having trouble getting staff for the Ajax Loblaws RCSS that is set to open in 6 weeks. I hear that they can't get enough managers or part time staff. Is there any truth to this? Does anyone from the Ajax area know anything about this?

We have not heard anything about a dues increase. The stores have settled down and no one is talking much. We all think we have been screwed by both the union and the company. The only difference is the union is on our side. Poor representation in all of this. Zehrs is opening Midland in a few weeks and Loblaws is going to the city for approval for more footage at Gamage. We all asked the ufcw to get together ( 1000A and 1977) for negotiations but apparently their egos got in the way. Look at what can be accomplished when people work together ( loblaws/ Zehrs) if you see what I mean.

After the latest concessions,there is no way our union will ever make another demand let alone go out on strike.Our union is impotent an dishonest.

Couldnt agree with you more, any other industry that is dominated by a handful of companies- all profitable - yet mostly organized would be a dream come true for a union with any kind of balls. Unfortunately each local is so paranoid about losing dues that it is unwilling to make a stand. The union has to stop listening to the companies demands for concessions due to the boogeyman/competition because for the most part its just stealing from its self (other union members).

I have heard that you can make between,45,000 and 60,000 plus a bonus if you are a "manager" in the "new face of retail at Loblaws".Oh by the way a notice went up this week at Loblaws stores about the dues increase
11 hours or less per week 5.72
12 hours or less per week 6.97
over 24 hours per week 7.47
With a notation that the international has increased dues on locals effective 2003,2004,2005 and optional increases in 2006 and 2007.They have taken care of business for themselves for the next 5 years... now if they can only look after us....oh yeah they just did.I wonder when the pay raises for the union executives is going to come into effect?

There may be a meeting on the 24 of Sept.2003.The union is impotent now.How can they fight for us when they have committed this crime?The company has this over them for all time.The only option is open revolt against the union.As soon as their worthless souls are threatened they will begin to fight.Not for us but for their own yellow skins.Keep up to date here, all info will be posted

No I am not suggesting that we contact the CAW,They won't touch us with a ten foot pole.They got their business union ass kicked at the Canadian Labour Congress for the shenanigans they pulled when they were raiding the SEIU.This has to come from Loblaw workers.Every person who signs on to the complaint is a very loud voice saying REPRESENT US FAIRLY.When the time comes and we create a little media stir,they will all be shaking in their boots.They cannot stand the media glare,To many dirty deals could be uncovered.Suppose there is a hearing and there are a few picketers on University avenue saying we want a vote.What is the Toronto Star going to put in the paper?Agitate,Agitate, agitate.The union is soft.They dont know how to fight as they have shown

I spoke to a worker from Ottawa today,it seems the word is getting out over there and they are just as pissed as the rest of us.The co-worker is dedicated and has provided names and spread the word.He told me that the new rcss is due to open within a few days and that he was offered to go there and work without transfering for the opening.He would have to paid under our contract.Funny how necessity dictates wages.BTW how many walmarts are there in Ottawa?The worker also told me he is an active union steward and the company is none too pleased with him,he has a disciplinary meeting scheduled about his promotion of this website and passing out the Labour Board Complaint sign-up sheet.I am getting sheets back via the mail and they have this websites address on the sheets,the internet is a great tool!!There was another rumour that the re-furb crews that open new loblaw stores will not open rcss because of the wages ....TOO LOW

just to keep everyone up to date,the total of names is 67.I recieved 20 names today from Ottawa,I think there is a coincidence,that is where the Ist Loblaw rcss is due to open and the rumour is that a YIG closed down the street and the company offered all the jobs to the YIG employees.The company opposes adding any names to the complaint and I got a nasty letter after I demanded documents,which they might rely on in the hearing,which I am entitled to.We are doing very well in certain stores but finding contacts in stores not represented is still a challenge.Thanks for all the help everyone

If you have asked that your name be added to the complaint but you are from another bargaining unit, the worst that can happen is that the Board declines to add your name to the complaint. I have no idea how your request can hinder the complaint or why you would have any other reason to be concerned. Sounds to me like the machine heads are just trying to contain the damage to their grand plan and would like to keep members from other units from showing solidarity with the members at Loblaws.

Its just that BB mentioned to Craig to watch out or something to that extent and we weren't sure as to the context of the warning.

Hey BB, we were told at the union rep meeting by Kevin Corporon himself that this amendment to our contract would not allow any Loblaws employees to go and help in the RCSS stores and that it would be in violation of the RCSS contract. So why are a few of my friends that work in a Loblaws going to the RCSS Ajax store to help? Kevin told us that this is the same situation as a Loblaws employee going to help in a No Frills and that it is a violation of the contract. So why do these clowns keep changing the rules as they go along? I wouldn't be surprised if they were to change our contract again before 2006 where they take away our sick days and force us to work on Sundays, followed by Kevin Corporon telling the members that this was the best they can do of a bad situation or an unprecidented negotiation breakthrough.

quote:

---

In a union submission to the labour board, the union opposes adding any names to the complaint... "there is no evidence that Mr. Blasdell has the authority to advance this claim for standing on behalf of these individuals"......

---

The poor boys are just pissed that you have managed to get more people to back your complaint than they can get to back their shady deal gee go figure

ahhh I heard that too cointoss. I was wondering if that includes going from full time nights at Loblaws to full time days at RCSS. If so that would suck as that is the sitation I am looking at. Either that or working nights forever at Loblaws...

quote:

---

Now we hear that if a part time employee takes a full time job at rcss or if anyone takes any kind of a promotion then they do not get the buy down.

---

A good friend of mine asked supervision about going RCSS in a higher position and was told exactly that, it is a "PROMOTION" and therefor you are not eligible for a "BUYDOWN"

I was called into the store managers office at 430pm today and told not to associate with co-workers when they are on company time.I knew this type of thing was coming and was ready.My response was "if this is a reprisal for me excercising a right under Ontario law I will have YOU in court", I made sure that the store manager knew that HE would be without support just like the union is now.I am pretty sure this is coming from above him,fear is at the top.The company stands for making more money and that is all.I wanted him to know that they will piss all over him as they would me and our union leaders.That is why solidarity is important,we need our leadership to lead us in hard times,not sell our rights.I have been contacted by a ufcw 175 worker who wants to persue a complaint at the board.

Just have a question if someone could help me. I went to work earlier this week and seen sign up sheets for who would help out at the new Don Mills RCSS ....was it not said at the union meeting that no Loblaws workers would be helping out. Also at some Loblaws stores they are also training the RCSS workers in Loblaws stores....Thought that wasn't suppost to happen either..

Lorna I agree with you. It was said that both chains would be separate, but as usual when the company needs a favour the union is there to lend a hand. I would call the union and tell them exactly what you think about the situation.

Maybe you can also tell them that there's still time to make a Section 1(4) application (an application that asks the OLRB to find that Loblaws and RCSS are employers under common control and should be covered under the current collective agreement - without the changes that were negotiated in secret). All Local 1000a would have to do (also) is repudiate the changes it agreed to. It has a perfect opportunity to do just that: Kevin Corporon can say, "Yes, the members are right. We didn't let them ratify the changes, therefore, we can't agree to them."

The transfer of staff from one chain to the other is useful evidence in a Section 1(4) application.

Just