Visit uncharted.ca!
  • authored by news
  • published Wed, Feb 27, 2002

MFD Sued by 'Voice for Working America'

UFCW International Union strikes again!

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, which boasts that it is the Voice for Working America, has commenced a lawsuit to silence the MFD. The suit names Kelsey Sigurdur, MFD's webmaster and site owner, and Sharyn Sigurdur, a UFCW Local 1518 member in good standing who works as a part-time grocery store clerk as defendants. Although Kelsey is named in the documents served on Sharyn Sigurdur, he has not yet been served with the suit. Also named in the suit are "John Doe and Jane Doe, persons whose names and identities are presently unknown" to the Voice for Working America. The UFCW claims that Ms. Doe and Mr. Doe have "participated with the identified Defendants in the conduct set out" in its Writ of Summons.

What has prompted this latest UFCW assault on freedom of speech?

Of particular issue appears to be MFD web site's use of the acronym "UFCW" in its URL. According to the UFCW's Statement of Claim:

"The MFD Website is not approved by or affiliated with the UFCW or any local of the UFCW... The Defendants have not obtained the consent or authorization of the UFCW, or any local of the UFCW, to use the UFCW's name or acronym in connection with the MFD Website."

The Voice for Working America also takes offense at MFD's criticism of the UFCW and the labour movement in general:

"The content posted on the MFD Website is critical of the union movement generally and of the UFCW and its affiliated locals, and their executive members and employees.... Further, many of the postings on the MFD Website are defamatory of the UFCW and its affiliated locals, and their executive members and employees."

Finally, the UFCW believes that the MFD web site is likely to be mistaken for a UFCW web site:

"The Defendants' use of the UFCW's name and acronym in connection with the MFD Website... was and is calculated to cause and is likely to cause confusion between the MFD Website and the websites operated by the UFCW and its affiliated locals. In so doing, the Defendants, and each of them, are passing off on the goodwill of the UFCW and its affiliated locals, and are passing off the MFD Website as and for a website operated by the UFCW and its affiliated locals or as being authorized, sanctioned or affiliated with the UFCW and its affiliated locals."

As a remedy, the UFCW is seeking a declaration that MFD's use of the UFCW name or acronym constitutes "passing off" and "an interim, interlocutory and permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, from using the UFCW's name or acronym in connection with the MFD Website or any website without the approval and consent of the UFCW, and in particular, from using the URL - www.ufcw.net. The UFCW is also seeking general, punitive and exemplary damages in an unspecified amount.

Sharyn Sigurdur intends to fight the lawsuit and so does Kelsey, better known as "slek" - if he is ever served with it. He expressed surprise when asked about the UFCW's pursuit of a "passing off" declaration. "Absolute rubbish. There's no way anyone could mistake our site for a UFCW site. We outclass them by miles. The only similarity is the URL." he said. "We have UFCW supporters and UFCW officials that visit the site daily and post in the forums. I highly doubt that these visitors have ever thought that we are an "official" site. It's about as likely as someone mistaking the UFCW-sponsored walmartyrs.com site for an 'official' Wal-Mart site.".

The UFCW has threatened MFD with legal action twice in the past. On the last occasion, in August 2001, Sigurdur asked for specifics as to exactly what material on the site the UFCW considered defamatory. He never received a response. This is the third lawsuit the UFCW has initiated against Canadian union reform activists in the past six months. In addition, three other activists and a Socialist newspaper have recently been threatened with legal action by the UFCW.

We'll bring you more as this story unfolds.

  • posted by Richard
  • Wed, Feb 27, 2002 6:30am

At the moment, the don't know whether to sue, chew, screw or spew. Apparently there's some info floating around that they are beside themselves about.

Apparently, the International was told that Mike could handle it, but the sh&* just keeps getting deeper. The Canadians aren't techies, so they haven't figured out where the "ignore" button is. They keep hitting the panic button instead.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Wed, Feb 27, 2002 7:53am

Ooooh, we're soooo scared! [look up]

Well, I'd say the UFCW leadership has really gone and done it now. It's about time these issues had a full and public airing.

  • posted by retailworker
  • Wed, Feb 27, 2002 7:55am

Declan McCullugh published the Gammert story to his mailing list. Looks like there needs to be a follow-up!

This is the header McCullagh added:

"[If only William Gammert had someone to stick up for his rights... Like a worker-formed collective organized for mutual interest that could stand up
to the authorites and defend his right to be free from oppression! Anyway, the Subject: line is a little misleading. The lawsuit is not just
about posting the union's constitution but also defamation and breach of contract. Also, it looks like the lawsuit was filed last year; it's unclear what has happened since. I invite UFCW to reply. --Declan]"

I followed up with a note about the new lawsuit and a link to MFD.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Wed, Feb 27, 2002 10:04am

Thanks DriveOn. Yes, let's spread the word around. It's time the world knew the truth about how some unions treat their members.

Although there is so much about this shameful display of macho-moneyed-might that makes me positively want to barf, the question that is really plaguing me right now is:

The UFCW is suing a woman, part-time service industry worker. Is this the UFCW's way of telling us they care about women workers? Here are some sites that imply that they care:

http://www.ufcw.ca/women/index.html

http://www.ufcw.org/issues/page.cfm?subsection_id=170

Hey check it out! International women's day is coming up - maybe the UFCW meant to send Sharyn Sigurdur a big bouquet but its lawyers suggested a lawsuit instead.
http://www.ofl-fto.on.ca/

Shame on you all.

  • posted by retailworker
  • Wed, Feb 27, 2002 10:26am

I posted this to the labour webmasters forum at labourstart.org:

"The United Food and Commercial Workers Union has filed suit charging defamation and copyright infringement against UFCW members who have set up sites critical of the Union.

William Gammert, a $7/hr part-time clerk with a geocities Web site, is being sued for defamation, and, unbelieveably, for posting a copy of the union's constitution on the Web.

Members for Democracy, the Canadian union reform organization whose Web site is owned by a part-time grocery clerk and union member, is being sued over the use of the domain "ufcw.net" and for defamation.

The UFCW is also suing a socialist-run news site.

This is absolutely craven and intolerant behavior by one of the largest unions in North America. I urge all the Labor webmasters on this list to spread the word.

More info can be learned from visiting:

http://www.ufcw.net
http://www.retailworker.com"

Perhaps they'd like to sue retailworker.com and add an unemployed webmaster to their hitlist.

  • posted by weiser
  • Wed, Feb 27, 2002 12:01pm

I think William clarified in another thread that he makes $22 and change, but that he's capped at 25 hours per week.

What's amazing is that he's at top rate and it takes nearly six years to get to top rate and still he's only working just over half time.

  • posted by sleK
  • Wed, Feb 27, 2002 12:36pm

This is such a "crock" it hurts!

I'll get into some specifics later. I've got to go to work™.

quote:


If the press is not free, if speech is not independent and untrammeled, if the mind is shackled or made impotent through fear, it makes no difference under what form of government you live, you are a subject and not a citizen.

William E. Borah


EDIT: Thanks for the extra publicity DriveOn!

  • posted by <rebelwithoutapause>
  • Wed, Feb 27, 2002 2:30pm

"The Defendants' use of the UFCW's name and acronym in connection with the MFD Website... was and is calculated to cause and is likely to cause confusion between the MFD Website and the websites operated by the UFCW and its affiliated locals. In so doing, the Defendants, and each of them, are passing off on the goodwill of the UFCW and its affiliated locals, and are passing off the MFD Website as and for a website operated by the UFCW and its affiliated locals or as being authorized, sanctioned or affiliated with the UFCW and its affiliated locals."

Only the UFCW could come up with a theory this stupid. Kick their ass, MFD!

  • posted by Willie
  • Wed, Feb 27, 2002 3:20pm

I don't know what UFCW is thinking. A while back I did a search for UFCW and came up with a bunch of restling sites using the same. Is UFCW going to sue all the little kids that built those sites too? I think that it was on geocities. GOOD LUCK MFD

  • posted by laura
  • Wed, Feb 27, 2002 5:01pm

Maybe you should run a poll and see how many viewers are confused and don't know where they are.

  • posted by weiser
  • Wed, Feb 27, 2002 5:14pm

Hi Laura,

Confused about what? Could you elaborate?

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Wed, Feb 27, 2002 6:30pm

I think what Laura means is having a poll question that asks:

Whose web site do you think this is:

1. MFD
2. UFCW

  • posted by weiser
  • Wed, Feb 27, 2002 6:51pm



It doesn't take much to confuse me, but I still know this ain't a UFCW site.

If a poll was put up, the trolls would be out in force to pretend that they thought this was a UFCW site. However, I know Ric, Sports_Wiz, and the "noisemakers" are pretty sure that this isn't a UFCW site.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Wed, Feb 27, 2002 8:04pm

SLAPP SLAPP SLAPP

Thanks to the widspread use and acceptance of the Internet the MFD, along with other labour media sites have created one of the most clever Chinese finger locks in human history. I suppose though it's less a credit to our own intellect and more likely do to the predictable nature of our principle antagonists that we've managed as well as we have.

A huge fan of NBC's "the West Wing" I marvelled at the ironic microcosm surrounding the Chess games on tonights show. "take your time and see the whole board" the President kept saying. Then he moved in for check mate. I take great satisfaction in knowing that the principle leaders of the UFCW and other business unions seldom if ever take the time to see the whole board. With an endless supply of available funds they've gotten SLAPP happy and become completely relient on their lawyers.

It doesn't matter how hard they try and force it, they will never be able to get the cork back in the bottle The UFCW is running out of moves and they are to blinded to see that it wasn't the panic button they hit...it was the self destruct. Good riddence.

  • posted by siggy
  • Wed, Feb 27, 2002 8:12pm

Geez .. the writ suggests that people who visit here aren't bright enough to know where they are or where they are going .. now that's a diss.

This whole thing is beyond stooooopid and is befitting of a quote from Barney, the big purple kid ...

"I love you, you love me..
We're a happy family
With a great big slapp
And a diss from me to you ..."

  • posted by siggy
  • Wed, Feb 27, 2002 8:56pm

I think this is a good time to quote my late brother as well.

My brother would taste just about anything that went past him and when I asked him if there was anything he didn't like or wouldn't eat he said

quote:


Yeah .. tomato sauce 'cause the fly shit quota was too high


I had no idea at the time that this was a much broader observation and would apply to other things in life .. but it definitely applies here!

  • posted by sleK
  • Thu, Feb 28, 2002 1:24am

Alright.

I've uploaded a text version of the writ of summons. You can read it by clicking here. I've removed the "defendants" addresses and some of the text may be sketchy (cursed OCR scanner!). You'll probably want to skip down to the "Statement of Claim" part ('bout halfway down the page).

I'm going to skip on ripping their absurd claims apart for now. But you guys feel free to comment on it! In fact I insist!

And if there are any lawyer types in the crowd please chime in and offer some comments.

This is SO pathetic!

  • posted by retailworker
  • Thu, Feb 28, 2002 2:47am

Here's the obvious inconsistency:

On the one hand they accuse you of being anti-union, and on the other hand they accuse you of trying to pass off as a union publication.

  • posted by sleK
  • Thu, Feb 28, 2002 2:58am

Oh there's more than that! They made numerous mistakes!

Most of them quite simple. Other's are intentional.

  • posted by sleK
  • Thu, Feb 28, 2002 3:02am

The whole "business" thing is a real knee-slapper! I'd love to see how they substantiate that!

They got the date of the site's inception wrong too! Waaaaaaay off!

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Feb 28, 2002 9:25am

Something that really troubles me is the reference to the MFD site being "critical of the union movement". Well, duh...thanks for noticing, but why is this in the Writ? Is the UFCW acting on behalf of the "union movement" in this lawsuit? Does criticism of the union movement constitute defamation? I want to hear them explain that one. Better yet, maybe we should ask the CLC if the UFCW is acting on its behalf.

Actually, come to think of it, they didn't even really get that claim right: MFD is not critical of the union movement. It's critical of the actions, strategies, philosophy and motivations of some unions.

  • posted by weiser
  • Thu, Feb 28, 2002 10:24am

I think the CSN would be outraged to have the UFCW speaking on its behalf.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Thu, Feb 28, 2002 11:09am

quote:


the Defendants, and each of them, are passing off on the goodwill of the UFCW and its affiliated locals, and are passing off the MFD Website as and for a website operated by the UFCW and its affiliated locals or as being authorized, sanctioned or affiliated with the UFCW and its affiliated locals.

22.The conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, described above was and is intended to cause injury and damage, has caused injury and damage, and is likely to cause further injury and damage to the UFCW and its affiliated locals.


[look up][look up][look up][look up][look up][look up]

In order to demonstrate that the MFD has caused personal injury or damage you have to be able to prove beyond doubt what was said was in fact not true. You are a community of fools and it shows.

Given that this site does not advertize and is non profit how is it you believe it's administrators are "business men"? could it be that it's a reflection of your own veiws on how you see the UFCW?...you know... as your own personal business?

You can kill the man, but you can never kill a good idea. The UFCW is ripe with corruption and it appears to me it's leaders don't have any intent on cleaning it up and often find themselves at the center of it [such as William Wynn]

The world would be a better place without unions like the UFCW and workers could prosper and thrive if they could participate in a genuinely democratic and participatory union centered on the interests of the members and not the interests of the union organization and it's elite. No cost is too high, no sacrafice too great and no cause more noble than to achieve this end.

The burden of proof falls in your court UFCW, serves up

  • posted by wannabeCAW
  • Thu, Feb 28, 2002 1:56pm

I am embarrassed to be a part of the ufcw. Thanks Mr.&Mrs.slek for your (our) site!!!!!!
The ufcw sites pale in comparision to MFD and www.caw.ca!! Without a doubt!!!!!
In my opinion the ufcw should be turfed out of the CLC for contradicting themselves
over and over again SHAME on YOU UFCW You truly are an EMBARRASSMENT.....
You are not worthy in OUR country/ ufcw are voluntarily WRECKing themselves!! Believe it you are detrimental to the young working people!!!
Go away leave us alone!!!!

  • posted by retailworker
  • Thu, Feb 28, 2002 2:26pm

I contacted the AUD, Labornotes, Labornet.org, and Reap with the news.

  • posted by Secret Agent
  • Thu, Feb 28, 2002 5:16pm

Lawsuits? Bad strategy for an outfit that depends on secrecy and control. Lawsuits draw the media and the public and create paper trails. Shame on our friends at the UFCW. I thought they were smarter than that. There's no quicker way to a good outing.

Nonetheless, I too am righteously indignant. Take not UFCW central command: I have not yet begun to snoop!

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Feb 28, 2002 7:18pm

You're all great. One thing is for sure and that is that there is a real cooperative effort emerging here to defend the web site. This could turn out to be a really great example of the power of the internet and how it can bring people together.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Thu, Feb 28, 2002 11:09pm

I used to play hockey with a guy in Cambells cabnet and I had a chance to get to know the President of the B.C. liberals when I was at 7-11. Seems to me with all the crap thrown at the B.C. Liberals by unions in the past couple months they would love a few stones to hurl back. Unions suing their own members in a blatent effort to silence their critics for doing far less than the UFCW dishes out to people and org. they don't like would be great cannon fodder. I don't think anybody on our site has ever called a UFCW staffer a lier have they? I make the calls tomorrow.

  • posted by sleK
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 3:55am

quote:


I contacted the AUD, Labornotes, Labornet.org, and Reap with the news.




I've received a bunch of encouraging emails from all over the place!

quote:


Why not get people to mirror your site anywhere and everywhere? This is
the only chance of beating such legal nonsense...


quote:


Your Web site is one of the best labor sites I have seen, anywhere... Would love to talk to folks active with MFD some day about overlapping interests...


quote:


I FIND IT RATHER SAD THAT THEIR ONLY PURPOSE IS TO FINANCIALLY BANKRUPT YOU ALL INTO OBSECURITY AND THEREBY BE RID OF YOUR WEB SITE. I BELIEVE IT SERVES SOME VERY FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSES.


Gotta love the intarweb!

  • posted by sleK
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 4:12am

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=142566&group=webcast

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 7:01am

As for Scott's comment about the BC Liberal Party, I'd say tread carefully.

Yes we want change, but we don't want to bite off our nose to spite our face. Change is needed at government level, but let us not just lob a political bomb and hope it clears out the machine heads only.

Know exactly what you want and lobby for it. Be able to articulate what is needed and what is not. To attack in blind anger leaves many blind dead.

Maybe another thread is needed to discuss what protection a government could give workers without crushing the effectiveness of labour unions.

  • posted by wannabeCAW
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 8:49am

A great many people are getting to hear and see incompetance from the
UFCW. Most people do not care until they are personally affected{I like that
riddle -and then there were none-} To the educated person they know this
gag-ordering of members is appalling to say the least!!!!
We in the labour movement don't need a union{ufcw} to walk us backwards!
the sheep can do that for us by themselves
A constitution is to live and ABIDE by--- Shame ufcw for quieting your critics!
You shall become still in the water when the truth gets out!!!
On a parting note gonna go spread this bolagna in Windsor to some
people who shall be quite eager to care and spread the word
Power to the LEFT Power to Mr & Mrs.slek

  • posted by siggy
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 9:04am

Thanks wannabeCAW! I appreciate the enormous support and I am sure my son does too!

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 2:36pm

quote:


As for Scott's comment about the BC Liberal Party, I'd say tread carefully.


He isn't easy to get a hold of but remember this.. no sacrafice is too great, no cause more nobel and no price too high to defend freedom of speech. If it comes down to a choice between saving the labour movement and protecting my right to free speech....the labour movement will be sacraficed every single time!

As long as we protect our right to free speech we can always start over agian. But for workers to have the right to organize without the ability to criticize those who govern us is of no value and we are better off without them. So spare me the concern for the movement. I don't see a single union representative of the B.C. fed or the CLC stepping in do you?

quote:


but we don't want to bite off our nose to spite our face


Sometimes the only way to save the body from cancer is to cut off the appendage that's infected. If that's our nose than our nose has to go. If it spreads than those appendages also have to go. If there is nothing left...we only speeded up the inevitable. I am making the call, let the chips fall where they may.

  • posted by retailworker
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 8:21pm

pardon my Popery, but is this what we really want: if thy nose offends thee:

"The ideology of radical libertarianism is both mistaken and harmful not least, to legitimate free expression in the service of truth. The error lies in exalting freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute, which would then be the source of values....In this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and being at peace with oneself'. There is no room for authentic community, the common good, and solidarity in this way of thinking."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_20020228_ethics-internet_en.html

edit: (suds...)

  • posted by sleK
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 8:26pm

Labornet has got us on its front page: http://www.labornet.org/

Retailworkers coverage of Williams suit too!



Purty cool!

  • posted by retailworker
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 8:28pm

i am a grassroots marketing machine!

  • posted by sleK
  • Sun, Mar 3, 2002 8:45am

quote:


i am a grassroots marketing machine!


Seriously though!

http://www.politechbot.com/

  • posted by Legal_Beagle
  • Sun, Mar 3, 2002 8:57am

quote:


Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:44:30 -0500
From: "Paul Levy"
To:
Subject: Re: FC: Unions sue member for posting constitution on the web

I looked at the documents, because I was asked for advice some time ago about a similar question involving an American union. But I don't see
anything in the text of the complaint to suggest that the UFCW International (based in DC) is a co-plaintiff in this case; only that UFCW Canada and the Vancouver BC local are plaintiffs; unfortunately, it is going to be hard to apply the US Constitution, and the very good protections afforded by the LMRDA to members of US unions, to this case.

Defamation seems to be the main claim in this case, and the accusations are pretty strong. The claim based on constitution posting is thrown in at the end (not that it is any less objectionable for that)

Given that Canadian libel law is much less protective of the defendant than US law under NY Times v. Sullivan and Plant Guard Workers v. Linn, this defendant seems to be in for a hard time.

Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 588-1000
http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html


I think if Mr. Levy looks at the consent order on Gammert's site, he will see that the International has taken over from UFCW Canada as the Plaintiff. As well, it would seem like an uphill battle if Gammert couldn't substantiate his claims. As well, Local 777 no longer exists as an entity. Gammert has a pretty good case when you take his evidence and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms into account.

  • posted by HB
  • Sat, Jul 13, 2002 9:28am

What's the latest with this? Do Teamsters unions do stupid stuff like this? Is UFCW 400 in on this to? I can't believe a union would go after it's own members.

  • posted by siggy
  • Sat, Jul 13, 2002 10:46am

Thanks for bringing this up again HB.

The lawsuit is in my life everyday and it's only fair that the machine be reminded everyday what it's doing to its' members too.

  • posted by licatsplit
  • Sat, Jul 13, 2002 1:01pm

quote:


it's only fair that the machine be reminded everyday what it's doing to its' members too.


I think it is definately a good idea to keep it fresh in their minds. They need to be kept aware of the suicidal tendencies that exist within their little machine heads! Just because there hasn't been much activity from their side concerning the lawsuit, isn't any reason not to keep visitors here at MFD aware of the situation.

I have seen Section 199 of the United Association's Constituion deleted because it was ruled by a federal judge to violate the member's basic right of free speech. We as members have rights, and by God we need to make sure they know it! It is not a dictatorship but a Democracy, period!

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sat, Jul 13, 2002 6:11pm

The UFCW leaders who sanctioned the lawsuit are stuck between what I think someone once called a rock and an MFD place. If they drop their lawsuit they'll look bad, if they proceed with it, they'll look worse. I'd drop it machine heads - you'll only look bad.

  • posted by eagle_one
  • Sat, Jul 13, 2002 11:14pm

I think it's hard to imagine anyone looking bad when we members pay so much for all those fancy cloths.

  • posted by <Fisher>
  • Sun, Jul 14, 2002 4:25am

quote:


posted by Scott Mcpherson:

quote:


the Defendants, and each of them, are passing off on the goodwill of the UFCW and its affiliated locals, and are passing off the MFD Website as and for a website operated by the UFCW and its affiliated locals or as being authorized, sanctioned or affiliated with the UFCW and its affiliated locals.

22.The conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, described above was and is intended to cause injury and damage, has caused injury and damage, and is likely to cause further injury and damage to the UFCW and its affiliated locals.

 

[look up][look up][look up][look up][look up][look up]

In order to demonstrate that the MFD has caused personal injury or damage you have to be able to prove beyond doubt what was said was in fact not true. You are a community of fools and it shows.

Given that this site does not advertize and is non profit how is it you believe it's administrators are "business men"? could it be that it's a reflection of your own veiws on how you see the UFCW?...you know... as your own personal business?

You can kill the man, but you can never kill a good idea. The UFCW is ripe with corruption and it appears to me it's leaders don't have any intent on cleaning it up and often find themselves at the center of it [such as William Wynn]

The world would be a better place without unions like the UFCW and workers could prosper and thrive if they could participate in a genuinely democratic and participatory union centered on the interests of the members and not the interests of the union organization and it's elite. No cost is too high, no sacrafice too great and no cause more noble than to achieve this end.

The burden of proof falls in your court UFCW, serves up


  • posted by Fisher
  • Sun, Jul 14, 2002 9:29am

Here is, at least some confirmable information. Every province has legislation covering liable and slander published with the intent of public viewing. [http://www.gov.pe.ca/law/statutes/index.php3] is where Prince Edward Island has the Defamation Act and insomuch as all provincial legislation must comply with Federal laws this legislation must be enforceable in-part throughout Canada. After viewing you will find the burden of proof for the Appellant is to show the extent of real personal damage caused or general damages by the alleged defamatory statements made, punitive damages are left up to the courts to determine. The Respondent, in this case the MFD site and specified administrators have the burden of justifying the alleged statements. Here is some actual case-law where two competing Unions found themselves in a similar situation [http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcsc/1998/1998bcsc11121.html]. Freedom of speech is not a free for all where one is given the opportunity to slander or liable at will. Both parties have rights and protections and I think it is about time the UFCW starts defending itself from this kind of attack. Statements of fact are just that fact but the one sided bias reporting of events designed to ridicule my union and the members who support the UFCW angers me to no end. Everyone has the right to their own perception of the events taking place around them but when they publish that perception as fact we enter a whole different arena, welcome to Democracy at work.

In Union Solidarity

Fisher

  • posted by licatsplit
  • Sun, Jul 14, 2002 10:00am

quote:


Freedom of speech is not a free for all where one is given the opportunity to slander or liable at will. Both parties have rights and protections and I think it is about time the UFCW starts defending itself from this kind of attack.


Freedom of speech is just that, the freedom to say what you feel or believe. It doesn't protect anyone from a law-suit but just ensures the person can voice their opinions. Fisher, do you think the administrators of a web-site should be held liable for the slanderous remarks posted by individuals other than themselves? In a discussion forum, is the web-site accountable for all material posted? In your opinion, how should the UFCW defend itself from these attacks?

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Sun, Jul 14, 2002 10:05am

quote:


Freedom of speech is not a free for all where one is given the opportunity to slander or liable at will....I think it is about time the UFCW starts defending itself from this kind of attack


Your right! they can start by ending partnership agreements with employers, they can start by prosecuting people who stuff ballot boxes during elections or who use union funds to campaign. They can start by prosecuting officials who steal union funds, or abuse their positions on union committees such as the pension fund. They can start by amending the constitution to reflect true participatory democracy instead of the sham the currently exists. They can start by holding elections [one vote one member] for top UFCW offfices. They can start by cracking down on employers who always "seem" to pursue termination and disciplinary actions agains union reformers. They can start by eneding sweetheart deals with employers.

Wow, what a list I could give you as just a starting point for the UFCW to start defending itself. None of which includes legal action against a member who is only speaking the truth. Your pissed, me too! I don't like being fooled into a false sence of security that my union is actually working for me and on my side instead of carrying out it's own agenda for it's working eliete.

You want to bring it? bring it. if there really is something there that's liable the UFCW has always had the opportunity to pick up the phone and call. People on this site always make every effort to edit material that could be liable or slanderous. Legal action has never been needed. But for candy ass union hanchos who've gotten caught with their hand's in the perverbial cookie jar that's not enough. They want to return to the dark ages when members never knew about their dirty deeds. To bad for them and too bad for you.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sun, Jul 14, 2002 10:57am

I believe that, to date, the UFCW has not even so much as stated just what it is on this web site that it believes is defamatory. Months and months have passed since it filed its lawsuit claiming that it has in some way - that has also not been explained - been harmed. As I understand it, neither the site administrator nor Sharyn Sigurdur have the foggiest clue about what the "Voice for Working America" is complaining about.

It would seem to me that if you really believed that some was saying somthing about you that was untrue and that, as a result of that, you had suffered some real and quantifiable harm that you would be fairly quick about saying what and how.

As far as the truth hurting - I agree with Scott: The UFCW should either stop engaging in actions that are going to expose it to criticism or put up, shut up and stop persecuting its members and members of the general public who wish to exercise their constitutional rights.

Fisher: If I can criticize the Prime Minister of Canada or the President of the United States, why should I not be able to criticize the UFCW? If the UFCW does partnering agreements with employers and I think that's a bad thing, why shouldn't I be able to say so without fear of persecution?

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Sun, Jul 14, 2002 3:52pm

I to have not been sued by UFCW but have been charged buy my union brother under the International constitution for exerciseing my rights under the PEI LabourAct to change unions. The charges were laid against me and two other brothers who spoke out against UFCW. These charges have caused the three of us a lot of sleepless nights with the possibility of being expelled from the union and being fired. Iam convinced that the person who laid the charges is a front for ufcw in an attempt to silence us and to scare us into not attempting to certifly another union again. If anyone is looking for democracy within ufcw they will not find it. The BA removed me and my executive from office.NOT THE MEMBERS. The BA removed me from the negoiation committee.NOT THE MEMBERS. the BA opened our contract . Not the members. The BA appointed his own union stewarts NOT THE MEMBERS For four years we have tried to make changes from within .It is impossible .We are tired of talking LET THE MEMBERS GO, LET THE MEMBERS DECIDE . IT IS TIME FOR ACTION NOT WORDS. By the way ,the member who has LAID CHARGES AGAINST HIS OWN UNION BROTHERS IS GEORGE FISHER.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sun, Jul 14, 2002 5:57pm

quote:


The BA removed me and my executive from office.NOT THE MEMBERS. The BA removed me from the negoiation committee.NOT THE MEMBERS. the BA opened our contract .


Please tell us more Downeaster. Why, when and how were you and your exec removed from office? Why were you removed from the negotiating committee? How and why did the BA reopen your contract and what was the outcome of that?

These are the stories of our lives and they need to be told.

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Mon, Jul 15, 2002 12:48pm

Our battle with the ufcw is a long one,The ufcw is a dictatership accountable to no one,not even the members.The ufcw solves their internal problems through threats,intimadation,and high price lawyers.The ufcw SUCKS. GOODBY, SOLONG.Its been a nightmare. If I seem bitter its because Iam!

  • posted by Fisher
  • Mon, Jul 15, 2002 6:00pm

quote:


posted by Downeaster:
The charges were laid against me and two other brothers who spoke out against UFCW. These charges have caused the three of us a lot of sleepless nights with the possibility of being expelled from the union and being fired. Iam convinced that the person who laid the charges is a front for ufcw in an attempt to silence us and to scare us into not attempting to certifly another union again.


Downeaster:

This is an open forum and I appreciate your input but you never asked me why I have undertaken to charge three of my fellow workers under the International Constitution. To start the decertification your group first attempted was don in a sleazy manner. Not informing your coworkers that under Island Labour legislation the companies obligation to comply with the existing contract would be forfeit should the decertification be successful shows a glaring disrespect to your union brothers. Second your attempt to alter the existing benefit package thereby reducing the medical coverage from 85% to 75% for the addition of a medical card was not handled properly. Not forecasting a vote on the issue and not taking the appropriate steps to inform your coworkers opens the door to legal action from anyone who found the reduction in benefits unreasonable. I attempted to have you delay implementing the above changes until it could be voted on in a plant wide manner only to have you tell me to get f#*%d. This forced me to go over your head and take the appropriate steps to stop you. Third and by no means last, although you are dedicated in your beliefs and a good man at heart you and your followers represents a direct financial threat to me and my family. You have proven to my satisfaction that the job of running this unit is over your head and further when the facts conflict with your demented paranoia beliefs about our Union you simply change them. Be advised that I have taken every reasonable step to work out our differences, I have given you every opportunity to eliminate the threat you represent to my family but as a single parent fighting to support my daughter I sware to you that I will eliminate that threat come hell or high water. The pure audacity of your belief that a small group of ninety men can supply the same representation and protection as the UFCW bogles the mind. The loss of the National Defence Fund protection, union strike pay, our pension plan, and any reasonable legal assistance, in combination with your abysmal track record on handling simple grievances, the so called constitution your group offered up for the Atlantic Meat Packers Union where a member could have their card pulled without the benefit of a hearing or an appeal represents the threat I mentioned earlier. Take this as fact, I am taking this action on my one accord and fore my own reasons and if it means standing up against sixty men so-be-it I back down from NO ONE when they threaten my FAMILY!

Fisher :

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Mon, Jul 15, 2002 7:56pm

George. I have been threatened many times to have my card pulled and my job lost by ufcw. Isn"t this a direct threat to my family? If you want to eliminate the threat to your family then for gods sake open your eyes leave the ufcw and sign an AMU card. The members will decide who they want to represent them in the end . that is all I ask,and that the majority has their say.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Mon, Jul 15, 2002 7:59pm

Everytime the subject of breaking free from the UFCW comes up, not long after the statement "loosing your pension" follows. Could somebody clarify for me why?

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Tue, Jul 16, 2002 3:40am

I would like to rebut somethe comments made by Fisher about me and my executive. When we filed to decertifly we knew there was going to be a short time where we would have no union,our legal adviser told us that but said it was very unlikely the company would do this.We took our lawyer with us to a UFCW meeting to debate that very issue with the UFCW lawyer and UFCW would not let our lawyer into the meeting ,so we left. The UFCW had a petition out for people who wanted to take their name off the decertifaction list and they only got 3 names and one of them resigned later so the members were willing to take the risk to leave UFCW We then dropped the decertification and applied to certifly the AMU This way we would not be without union for any period of time
We were having problems with our benifits plan in the time it took to process claims so we formed a committee to look around to see if there was a better plan, Great west life found out and agreed to make some inprovments.We sent a copy of the changes to the local making sure they were informed of everything. The local asked us to wait untill negoiations and we agreed ,they wanted us to take a look at the union plan.The contract was not opened so we decided to make the changes while they were available. We asked the local they replied that they would not interfere if we wanted to make these changes. We hah a meeting of the members ant the benefit committee gave a long presention explaining the changs. We then had another meeting ant the posted union notice stated there would be a presentation on the proposed changes and that there would be a vote.The members present voted to accept the changes. The next day the company received a letter from the BA stating that there would be no changes to the health plan without 100% approval of the membership. Fisher was not in attendance at either meeting. We then put a petition on the board asking who was in favor of the changes in yhe health plan and of those who signed everyone was in favor and none oppossed. By the way Fisher signed the petition in favor of the changes.
Ihave to go now but I will comment on the rest of Fishers statements later.
Downeaster:

  • posted by <Don>
  • Tue, Jul 16, 2002 2:03pm

As far as I understand. If you change unions you would not lose the vested pension you have accumulated. One of two things would happen

1. If the contract ends upon the certfacation of the new union the company would not be required to contribute to a pension on your behalf or deduct and remit employee contributions to a pension. until when and if the new union negotiates a collective agreement requiring them to do so.

2. If the old pension plan was a union plan the new union would not be able negotiate back into the same plan. they would have to negotiate a new plan with no guarantees about benifet levels etc.

  • posted by Fisher
  • Tue, Jul 16, 2002 4:16pm

quote:


posted by <Don>:
As far as I understand. If you change unions you would not lose the vested pension you have accumulated. One of two things would happen

1. If the contract ends upon the certfacation of the new union the company would not be required to contribute to a pension on your behalf or deduct and remit employee contributions to a pension. until when and if the new union negotiates a collective agreement requiring them to do so.

2. If the old pension plan was a union plan the new union would not be able negotiate back into the same plan. they would have to negotiate a new plan with no guarantees about benifet levels etc.


The pension plan I referred to is CCWIPP, a UFCW plan where you have to be a member of the union in order to participate. Currently the plan offers forty dollars a month pension for every year your employer contributes 60 cents per hour worked. Upon leaving the UFCW the members can, of-corse either elect to keep the money in CCWIPP and receive the pension generated to the date they left the union or have the money released and purchase back years in another plan. Here is the crunch, the cost to purchase back years is more expensive than continuing to an existing plan based only on the fact that years the new plan would have access to the money is reduced. The situation at Larsons, our sister plant who opted to replace the UFCW with the Atlantic Meatpackers Union sees the pension money generated from the employer from the date they left the UFCW being warehoused in a bank account and not generating the pension credits for the members it once did. So now the pension money generated from years of service for the members at Larsons is generating only common savings account interest and not coming close to the pension credits offered through CCWIPP. Is this a loss of pension? In real terms, that being the amount of money one has to retire on, it most certainly is.

In solidarity Fisher

  • posted by Fisher
  • Tue, Jul 16, 2002 4:44pm

quote:


posted by Downeaster:
If you want to eliminate the threat to your family then for gods sake open your eyes leave the ufcw and sign an AMU card..


The threat to my family will be eliminated and not at the price of my integrity. Just how democratic is the above quote in your opinion. Downeaster all I am looking for is the truth, I failed in having the controversial issues at our plant aired in an open arena of the rank and file and now am forced to have them aired in front of a panel of our union piers. Truth is an important commodity and something I treasure, that is why when you falsely state that a vote was publicized on the changes to our medical benefits you loose credibility with me and anyone who knows the facts. Also your statement concerning the UFCW not allowing your legal representative to debate the issues is also false, your representative was invited to debate those issues after our closed union meeting, you and your supporters refused this offer. Why? Management is the real enemy and they are the only ones benefiting from this fight. Please remember that individually we are just one voice but togther workers can shake the very foundations of this country.

In Solidarity Fisher

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Tue, Jul 16, 2002 5:43pm

quote:


Here is the crunch, the cost to purchase back years is more expensive than continuing to an existing plan based only on the fact that years the new plan would have access to the money is reduced.


Perhaps if you had to pay back years in a new pension plan, that in fact you may be paying into a defined pension plan that requires a substancial amount of money to bring up new members to that level of existing members. Exceptions to no money down, are usually agreements made between similar union benefit plans to accept contributions at par from the previous pension.

Did anyone have consultations with an unbiased third party pension company to get an idea of where the bottom line rests?

However, I must admit that if I was fed up with my union representation, I might want to get rid of the union at any cost and start new, if I new members would get democracy. I personally know that "the treat of loosing a pension" or the threat of "losing your contract" are all tactics used by status quo supporters to implement the fear tactic.

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Tue, Jul 16, 2002 6:20pm

When visiting this legal firms website, I could not not help but notice this quote:

Duhaime's LAWisdom:

"The individual who persecutes another because he is not of the same opinion is nothing less than a monster." Voltaire

I could not resist this quote placed on a legal firm's web site. I have to share it with all you folks.

Visit it live @www.duhaime.org

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Jul 16, 2002 6:51pm

quote:


The pure audacity of your belief that a small group of ninety men can supply the same representation and protection as the UFCW bogles the mind.


What makes you so certain that a small group of workers couldn't out-represent the UFCW? From some of the articles on this web site, I sometimes think that it would be hard to do any worse. There are many smaller unions and independents out there which do quite well for their members. In fact, going back a hundred years or so, most unions were small, locally-run grassroots organization. They really knew hard times and evil employers but were able to organize 1000's of workers and get decent improvements for them just the same.

Speaking of the CCWIPP, Fisher what do you think about these unusual investments? It seems to me that someone who is concerned about his pension (and rightfully so), would want to know what's going on here.

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Tue, Jul 16, 2002 8:18pm

I would like to rebut the rest of Fishers comments. I am sorry for the delay but Ihad family obligations. I am pleased that Fisher has taken controll of himself and calmed down a bit.I certainly would not continue to represent the members who elected me if I felt for one minute that our changing unions would be a direct financial threat to any of the members and their families.Staying with UFCW on the other hand could be and is. What good was the NATIONAL DEFENCE FUND when Michael MaCain was cutting meatplant workers salarys by 3 or 4 dollars an hour. The ufcw with all its members and money could not or would not rally its thousand of members to support their brothers and sisters,UFCW allowed work from one plant on strike to go to a sister plant under the same union.The same thing happened in the maritimes when Hubs were locked out.Meatplant workers took large wage cuts and concessions. As a result Fisher and the rest of us took three years of wage and benefit freezes.This is a direct financial threat.The last time our plant had a strike was in 1967, 35-years ago . The AMU is only a few months old it dosn"t have a big strike fund but it is a bottom -up union ,democratic,where the elected members are accountable to the members and the members only,and it has heart ,guts and a clear sence of true brotherhood that I have never once seen in ufcw.
As far as legal assistance ,there are trade unionist out there who are lawyers willing to donate their services for the cause. The ufcw lawyer on the island comes from a law firm who represent and are considered a corporate law firm which does not support labour. This Lawyer has been paid some say as much as a million dollars of our union dues some of which is used against its own members.
As far as grievances are concerned .when we could not settle a grievance to the satisfaction of the grievor passed it on to the BA to take it to arbritration. The grievance would then sit with the local in limbo. The local would not take any of our grievances to arbritration. I guess they wanted to make us look bad. There was always 5 or 6 of BA BEER DRINKING BUDDYS who would bypass the elected chief stewart and got the BA to right up thier greviances. If the members felt we were doing a bad job representing them they could have voted us out. INSTEAD WE WERE REMOVED TO BE SILENCED.
The next issue is the CCWIPP. This is a pet peve of mine.This is a long story but Iwill try to shortin it up.Ihave to go now, I will finish tomorrow.
Downeaster

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Wed, Jul 17, 2002 7:39am

When a person leaves the CCWIPP ,for whatever reason after 24 months that person has the option of leaving his or her money in the plan and collecting their pension that they have accumulated up to that point in time at retirenment age or to transfer the funds to another pension plan or RRSP.If you change unions you cannot continue to participate because you have to be a UFCW member.The CCWIPP is totatly controlled by UFCW.
About 6 years ago some of our members noticed that the rate of return for the amount of money that we were putting into the plan was getting smaller ,so we went to the BA and asked him we were told we were troble makers and if we didn"T LIKE THE PLAN WE SHOULD GET OUT OF IT . So we decided to do our own research.
We sent a letter to Cliff Evans a director and chief investnment officer .He replied that the Alberta Pension Commission was looking into the solvency of CCWIPP.I then wrote the Alberta Pension Commission and they stated that CCWIPP was having some funding problems and hopfully could work out these problems in a few months. We then received notice from CCWIPP stating that if you were not eligable to retire in 1997 or were not 50 years old in1997 there would be a reduction in your pension if you retired at 60 of 1half % a nonth or 30%from60 to 65. WHEN WE GOT INTO CCWIPP WE COULD RETIRE AT 60 WTIH A FULL PENSION. CCWIPP also stated that for those who were not eligable to retire in 1997 there would be a supplenment called the Supplementary Income Benefit(SIB) WHICH WOULD BE PAYED TO PEOPLE WHO RETIRE AT 60 SO THEY WOULD NOT TAKE A 30%REDUCTION. It also stated that the supplenment would be reviewed from year to year and available finances permitting. We then received our 2000 statement from CCWIPP .The statement said that if you were not eligable to retire in 1997 wou would take a reduction of 30%at age 60 ,60% at age 55 and 90%at age 50. There was no mention of (SIB).Prior to receiving my statement I wrote Mike Fraser about the pension reductions ,He latter called me on the phone and he garenteed that Iwould get my full pension at 60. When Ireceived the statment I then wrote the board of directors asking them to garentee me in writing that I would get my full pension at 60. THEIR REPLY WAS ALBERTA HAVE NOW DECIDED NOT TO APPROVE THE PAYMENT OF THE SIB IN THE FORM WHICH IT HAS BEEN CURRENTLY STRUCTURED. THERFOR, THE PAYMENT OF THE SIB HAS BEEN SUSPENDED. Why were the members not told that the supplement had been suspended? why was the Vice President of the local who works at our plant telling people that there would be no reduction in pension at age 60 when it simply was not true? The supplement was removed.
Ireceived an E-Mail from the Alberta Pension Commission about the supplement they replied that CCWIPP currently has some funding problems .These were caused by a number of things, most notably some inaccurate information from one of their advisers(who has been fired)
The members then received a memorandum and a letter from the BA and CCWIPP stating that the(SIB)is now called the(STO) Supportive Tempory Outlay ,has been reinstated. NO ONE WAS TOLD IT HAD BEEN SUSPENDED. We were told the pension funds hah been transfered from Alberta to Ontariowhere solvency requirments are less severe.A payment of 55 cents per hour would give you a pension of 40$ per year now we need 65cents per hour to get the same benefit.
I have written the board of directors Asking these questions Who WAS THE PERSON FIRED, WHAT BAD INVESTMENT ADVICE DID HE GIVE THE TRUSTEES OF CCWIPP? I ASKED FOR A FULL DISCLOSER OF INVESTMENTS THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE FUNDING PROBLEMS OF CCWIPP WHO RECOMENDED AND APPROVED THOSE INVESTMENTS DECISSIONS AND DID ANY MONEY FROM THE FUND GO TO BUINESSES IN WHICH CCWIPP TRUSTEES HAVE AN INTEREST.I ASKED FOR A LIST OF COMPANYS AND INVESTMENTS THAT CCWIPP IS INVESTING IN.I ALSO WANTED A GARENTEE THAT IWILL GET A FULL PENSION AT 60.I also sent a coppy of the letter to Larry MARTELLO (FSCO) ONTARIO PENSION BOARD.
THIS PENSION REDUCTION AT AGE 60 HAS AND NO GARENTEE OF THE SUPPLEMENT REPRESENTS A DIRECT FINANCIAL THREAT TO FISHER AND THOUSANDS OF CCWIPP MEMBERS IN OUR AGE RANGE WHO WERE PLANING TO RETIRE AT 60 WITH SOME DIGNITY.THE PENSION STATEMENT SAYS THE TRUSTEES HAVE AGREED TO FINANCE AN ADDITIONAL MONTHLY PAYMENT(STO)PROVIDED THAT THE ANNUAL ACTUARIAL REVIEW CONFIRMS TAHT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE. (that says it all).
According to my pension statement if I were to retire at 60there is a 30 % reduction in my pension.Icalculated my pension at 60 assuming the current rate of 40$per year to be 800$ per month minus 30%or 240$which gives me 560$a month less taxes ,Icannot figure in the (STO) because it is not garenteed from one year to the next. This huge pension is my rewards for working 30 years in a meat plant . THANKS UFCW FOR THE FINANCIAL SECURITY
I know this is boring stuff But I tried to condense my comments as much as I could
In solidarty for the workers
keep asking questions
Downeaster

  • posted by siggy
  • Wed, Jul 17, 2002 7:56am

quote:


If you change unions you cannot continue to participate because you have to be a UFCW member.The CCWIPP is totatly controlled by UFCW.


This is confusing. I thought leaving a plan (cease contributions) means the plan just stalls. It does not mean you forfiet your earned pension does it? You can have it transferred into another retirement vehicle or lump sum it.

That's assuming in the meantime despots don't *bad invest* it away?

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Wed, Jul 17, 2002 9:26am

No you still retain what you have earned and can leave the money in the plan or transfer it to another plan.

  • posted by siggy
  • Wed, Jul 17, 2002 9:43am

quote:


No you still retain what you have earned and can leave the money in the plan or transfer it to another plan.


So what's Fisher's point about losing his pension? $20,000 in one plan is the same as $10,000 in two plans isn't it?

Changing does not mean you stop contributing it just means you'll be contributing to a different plan.

In fact the way ccwipp is being pissed away, I would want to jump ship and begin contributing to a plan that's actually going to be there as opposed to one being eroded due to whatever the despots are calling the bad investments now.

  • posted by <Don>
  • Wed, Jul 17, 2002 10:07am

Siggy, let me repeat. if you change unions, you dont have a pension to contibute to because your collective agreement ended the day you switch unions. you must negotiate an entirely new collective agreement including a new pension plan. grievances that were outstanding on the day you switch including termination greivances become null and void. You start over as a newly certified bargaining unit.

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Wed, Jul 17, 2002 10:28am

WHEN you apply to certifly a new union and are certified by the labour board the new union automatically takes over the excisting contract and are responsible for any outstanding grievances and aribirtrations. Because CCWIPP is a UFCW pension plan when youchange unions you cannot contribute from that point on,you have to look for another plan.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Wed, Jul 17, 2002 1:49pm

I'd like to shed some light on this issue of what workers lose if or when they change unions.

Once a new union is certified, the union and the employer are obliged to bargain in good faith to conclude a collective agreement. In most (maybe all) Canadian jurisdictions, my understanding is that the wages and working conditions of the workers are frozen an can't be altered during the certification process and while bargaining is in progress (at least until a legal strike or lock out occurs and even then there are some obstacles that an employer may need to overcome if it wants to roll back workers' entitlements to the bare minimums provided by law).

While it is true that the employer is not legally obligated to give the new union the same or better agreement as that which it had with the previous union, it is also true that an employer is not legally obligated to give any current union the same or better deal when its collective agreement expires.

The outcome at bargaining depends on a wide range of factors and this is the case whether the union is one that the employer has dealt with for years or is a new union that has just displaced an existing union. It comes down to bargaining power.

Based on what I've seen, a union that has just been voted in has a strong incentive to negotiate at least as good a deal (more likely a better deal) than the union that it has just displaced. While employers sometimes make noises about all the terrible things that will happen if a new union gets in, they know damn well that - if pushed - they'll have to bargain a reasonable deal. Look at the settlements the CAW negotiated at workplaces that were previously represented by the SEIU. From everything I've seen they bargained improvements over the old collective agreements.

In jurisdictions that have imposed first agreement legislation, the new union may actually have an advantage, in that it may be able to ask the LRB for an imposed first agreement. It's not likely that the LRB will impose something worse than the workers had before.

As far as what happens to workers' pension entitlements if they change unions, I'd say the best way to get accurate information about that is to contact the regulatory agency responsible for overseeing your pension plan. I doubt very much that workers would simply forfeit what is in their pension accounts. My guess is that you would be treated in the same way as a worker who ceases to be a member of the union because s/he quit or was laid off or fired. In the case of the CCWIPP, the pension regulator is the FSCO. In the alternative, I would imagine that members could contact the CCWIPP administrator and request an answer (maybe in writing).

  • posted by <Don>
  • Wed, Jul 17, 2002 3:05pm

Are your terms and conditions really frozen following a change of unions. your collective agreement clearly no longer exists, for example your grievance and arbitration procedure is null and void. I've read arbitration awards from Ontario where the sucessor union tried to arbitrate terminations filed by the the old union and the arbitrator ruled he had no authority to hear the case due to the change of union and the employee stayed fired with no recourse. it seems to me that the grievance procedure was a term or condition of employment. if that right no longer exists why would any other term or condition that arises solely out of the old collective agreement still exist, including benefits.

Secondly if a pension exists as either a union only plan like most Building Trade Unions or jointly trusteed plans like many public sector plans and the UFCW plan under what authority could contributions be forwarded to a pension that the power source have rejected tacitly at least by turfing the union that set up and runs the plan.

My third point is how would or could a union accept contributions to it's pension plan set up for its members if they are not members any more its likely to be a violation of the bylaws of the plan

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Wed, Jul 17, 2002 4:38pm

quote:


I've read arbitration awards from Ontario where the sucessor union tried to arbitrate terminations filed by the the old union and the arbitrator ruled he had no authority to hear the case due to the change of union and the employee stayed fired with no recourse


I really don't like people who use the loss of their pension plan to scare people into staying in their crappy union and I expect you would want to provide us with the case you mentioned above. I didn't ask my question because I didn't know the answer....most of you who know me well might have already guessed that. It ticks me off when I hear somebody bemoan how one group isn't representing "all" the facts and in the very next breath they do precisely the same with what has to be the single most important benefit a workers has.

SEIU tried that "you'll loose your pension" crap and it didn't take them long to stop it after a letter from the CAW legal department. Are you really better off in a pension fund who's administrators buy up hotels and then set themselves up as board members of the management company that runs those hotels? use your heads.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Wed, Jul 17, 2002 4:39pm

Read up on the statutory freeze provisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Act[/b] for the answer to your questions about what is frozen in and why. There may be some doubt as to the status of grievances when workers change unions (but there is always doubt about the outcome of grievances anyway). Conceivably, the new union could raise the issues that were part of a grievance filed by the former union, as demands at negotiations. When it comes to the terms and conditions of employment however, those are definitely frozen in this province - whether they come from an employer's policies or a pre-existing collective agreement.

As far as the pension issue goes, I think an inquiry to the FSCO and the CCWIPP would answer that question.

Don, what do you think of the pension issues raised in the articles on this web site (Sins of the Father, Haunted Houses of Labour, Opportunity Knocks et al)?

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Wed, Jul 17, 2002 6:14pm

Article 16 of the PEI labour act states.Where an application is made under this part for certification of a trade union as bargaining agent of employees in a unit, the employer shall not, without the consent of the board,increase or decrease rats of pay or wages or alter any other term or condition of employment of any employees in the unit until the board has given its decision on the application and ,where the board certifies a trade union as bargaining agent.untill section 22 has been complied with.
Article 17 of the PEI Labour Act States: if at the time of certification ,a collective agreement binding on any of the employees in the unit is in force ,the trade union shall be substituted as a party to the agreement for such employees in place of the bargaining agent that is a party to the agreement.

Downeaster

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Wed, Jul 17, 2002 7:41pm

I'd say your provincial legislation prevents an employer from rolling back wages and other entitlements when workers choose to change unions.

Now, on to something about which I am becoming more and more curious as the days go by - the CCWIPP:

quote:


I have written the board of directors Asking these questions Who WAS THE PERSON FIRED, WHAT BAD INVESTMENT ADVICE DID HE GIVE THE TRUSTEES OF CCWIPP? I ASKED FOR A FULL DISCLOSER OF INVESTMENTS THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE FUNDING PROBLEMS OF CCWIPP WHO RECOMENDED AND APPROVED THOSE INVESTMENTS DECISSIONS AND DID ANY MONEY FROM THE FUND GO TO BUINESSES IN WHICH CCWIPP TRUSTEES HAVE AN INTEREST.I ASKED FOR A LIST OF COMPANYS AND INVESTMENTS THAT CCWIPP IS INVESTING IN.I ALSO WANTED A GARENTEE THAT IWILL GET A FULL PENSION AT 60.I also sent a coppy of the letter to Larry MARTELLO (FSCO) ONTARIO PENSION BOARD.


Have you heard anything back from the CCWIPP Directors or the FSCO? How long ago did you write your letters?

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Thu, Jul 18, 2002 4:31am

I sent a letter to CCWIPP on May 10.2002 .and a copy to l. Martello of FSCO .Igot a reply from FSCO saying that they would be looking into my concerns and would be getting back to me . They also sent me information on the responsbilitys of the FSCO and the administration people of a pension plan. I gave this to a friend and he lost it so I can"t recall all that was in it in detail.
I received a letter from CCWIPP asking me to send a copy of the e-mail I received from the Alberta P ension Commission .stating that one of their advestment advisers gave CCWIPP some bad advice who (has since been fired). I sent CCWIPP a copy of the e- mail and I sent a copy to FSCO.I received a letter from Clifford Evans on June 18.2002. The letter is fairly long . THEY SAID THE TRUSTEES APPOINTED AN INDEPENDENT ACTUARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILING THE REQUIRED VALUATIONS. THIS CHANGE WAS MADE BECAUSE OF DETERIORATING HEALTH OF THE FORMER ACTUARY.THIE FORMER ACTUARY SERVED THE CCWIPP FOR OVER 20 YEARS AND WAS HIRED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
tHE LETTER WENT ON TO BLAME PENSION LEGLISLATION FOR MULTI-EMPLOYER PENSION PLANS AS BEING TO HARSH. THE LETTER WENT ON TO SAY .THERE IS NO FUNDING PROBLEM IN RESPECT TO CCWIPP ON A GOING CONCERN BASIS ,WHICH IS HOW THE PENSION PLAN IS FUNDED DAY TO DAY. They sent me a copy of a financial statement that was plublished in the UFCW mag.dated Jan 1,2000 to Dec 31.2000.Ithen wrote Clifford Evans back on July 10.2002 saying that my questions had not been answered so I am asking them again and adding a few more. There is another multi -employer plan called CWIPP with one C that is much the same setup as CCWIPP .that has different unions involved .you have to be a member of the CLC and I haven"t heard that they were having problems with the pension boards or with their funding.i AM WAITING FOR A REPLY FROM THE FSCO.
Downeaster

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Jul 18, 2002 6:01am

It looks like the CWIPP is a CAW pension plan.

sorry! edited rather than quote. see further down.

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Thu, Jul 18, 2002 6:50am

There are many other unions in the CWIPP not just CAW . but it would be an alternative to the CCWIPP pension plan and easy to get in to if you were looking for another pension plan with defined benefits. what i am trying to say is there are other pension plans available.
downeaster

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Thu, Jul 18, 2002 4:24pm

Downeaster, do you have an idea what other unions are in the CCWIPP other than the CAW?

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Thu, Jul 18, 2002 5:06pm

I cant name other unions that are in CWIPP ,but I know you can be a member of CWIPP no matter what union you belong to but you have to belong to the CLC. Maybe someone out there who is listening can nane some other unions other than the CAW who belongs to CWIPP. My knowledge about CWIPP is very limited.
Downeaster

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Thu, Jul 18, 2002 9:48pm

quote:


I then wrote Clifford Evans back on July 10.2002 saying that my questions had not been answered




I sure I'm every bit as surprised as the rest of you.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Fri, Jul 19, 2002 3:30am

Please keep us posted on what happens Downeaster. This is a really important issue that you've raised. The pension fund is union members' money. Can you imagine going to the bank to find out why there is less in your account than there ought to be and getting the same kind of answer?

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Jul 19, 2002 6:41am

quote:


posted by remote viewer:
It looks like the CWIPP is a CAW pension plan.

sorry! edited rather than quote. see further down.


CAW's is "CWIPP" rather than "CCWIPP" completely different plans.

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sat, Jul 20, 2002 12:23am

Molson Loses Domain Name Rights

Molson might be huge, wealthy, and powerful, but an Ontario Judge tells Molson they do not own the rights to the domain "canadian.biz".

In what Douglas Black thought was a "lottery" win, turned out to be a scary head butting experience with a gready beer company.

In March of 2002, Douglas Black won a domain draw, and the right to canadian.biz. However, when Molson found out about Black having the name canadian.biz, they asked Black to voluntarily turn over the domain name. Black refused and Molson took Black and his domain name to the National Arbitration Forum, in Minnesota, United States.

A retired judge ruled that Black had in fact registered the domain name in bad faith and was forced to turn over the domain name to Molson. Black without any appeal process available to him, went to the Canadain courts.

A Canadian Judge ruled that Molson did not infact own the exclusive rights to "canadian.biz" and that Douglas Black could keep the name. As well, the Judge made Molson pay for all Black's legal expenses.

The case will have future legal ramifications as Black's lawyer said:

"On a legal level, it's the first case in Canada that a person who has lost their domain name at the quasi-arbitration stage . . . has appealed to a Canadian court," he said.

"And it's the first case worldwide with respect to a dot-biz decision from a court."

Isn't it funny that a Canadian Court overturns the pro business National Arbitration Forum kangaroo court that so many rich and powerful people count on to maintain the status quo. Someone finally, has had the courage and the money to adventure into the boundaries of the trademark realm. Hats off to Douglas Black, and thank you for setting a positive precident in trademanrk law.

aboutunions

Domain Name Precedent Set

  • posted by Fisher
  • Sat, Jul 20, 2002 9:24am

quote:


posted by Downeaster:
I cant name other unions that are in CWIPP ,but I know you can be a member of CWIPP no matter what union you belong to but you have to belong to the CLC. Maybe someone out there who is listening can nane some other unions other than the CAW who belongs to CWIPP. My knowledge about CWIPP is very limited.
Downeaster


http://www.caw.ca/whatwedo/bargaining/cbpac/2002program/chapter6.asp Will answer some of your questions. Now if you can answer some of mine. As you can see through the link I provided, the information comes from an official CAW site. Further you should note there is no mention of unions other than the CAW participating in the CWIPP. Now this plan boasts a membership of slightly more than thirteen thousand members. The CCWIPP plan has more than ten times the membership with an investment pool in excess of one hundred million dollars, as I have been told. I have taken the time to investigate the difference between group and individual pension plans with a family member who works with the Canadian government and is a financial advisor connected with the CPP division. I will try to relay the information I received. First the benefits connected to a group pension plan are directly connected to the number of members and thereby the investment pool available to the pension administrators. This makes sense as the greater the pool the more diverse the investments can be with a decreased risk of market trends. Second I asked if a small group of workers could enter an existing union group pension plan without becoming a member of that union. The answer was that in his experience there has never been an outside group invited to participate in a group pension plan and if it were to happen there would be a substantial entrance fee required. I then asked about the difference between staying with a existing group plan and buying back years in a new one. The cost of buying back service is always more expensive than buying the year to year pension credits. I am a bottom line person and when it comes to pensions the bottom line is the amount of money I will receive upon retiring. My ex-wife has already taken half of my pension, what makes you think I will allow you to put more restrictions on what I have left to retire on. Based only on the complaints of a few, no matter how many members you have convinced to follow you.

In Solidarity Fisher

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sat, Jul 20, 2002 12:02pm

quote:


My ex-wife has already taken half of my pension,


by Fisher

Sorry Brother Fisher, and I say this with all due respect, but your wife never took half of your pension, but in fact only got what was in fact legally hers. Divorce is a casualty but a reality of modern day life.

Despite the fact that you are always polite and courteous, I can not help but feel that you are just not getting the point many of us unionist are making. I would hope that if one of your neighbors robbed your home, that you would in fact defend their actions as you have the union that you belong to.

Perhaps Brother Fisher, rather than depend on a pension to retire on with the utmost security, you might be better off as most of us, in ensuring that unions negotiate the best wages for us all to put our own money away for our retirement. It would seem obvious at least to me that we can not depend on the integrity of union pensions to look after our retirement.

I for one changed my job and my union affiliation for a better life now and the future. To date I feel that you have adopted the defence strategy of the status quo in all due respect. It may be due to the fact that you have not had the true to life experiences with unions like a lot of us who visit this web site.

Union propaganda is very convincing and I almost bought into it myself before I was rudely awakened by the corrupt autocratic status quo union philosophy.

Let me share with you Brother Fisher, what a law professor told me in one of my courses.

If you learn nothing in this course, always remember this. Never take things at face value. Always break things down and build them back up again. Find the advantages and disadvantages of the point of view and make up your own opinion.

In conclusion it always take more courage to go beyond comfortable boundaries, than to sit on the status quo side. Brother Fisher, one day,with all due respect, you will be one hell of a unionist if you are able to just look past some of the walls that are implemented to prevent union members from grasping new concepts.

In Solidariy
aboutunions

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Sat, Jul 20, 2002 12:40pm

about unions -- Your comments about fisher are right on. Fisher on a few occasions has been ahead of his time .He wanted to start a web page for local 864 and the local would not fund it . and he wanted to have a day of protest for all meatplants when Michael MCain was cutting wages across Canada. I just wish Fisher would look beyound the BA "S bullshit and not take whatever he says at face value.
Downeaster

  • posted by Fisher
  • Sat, Jul 20, 2002 1:35pm

quote:


posted by about unions:
Sorry Brother Fisher, and I say this with all due respect, but your wife never took half of your pension, but in fact only got what was in fact legally hers. Divorce is a casualty but a reality of modern day life. [/QB]


It was not my intent to give the impression that I in any way regret the fact that my EX received half of my pension, she deserves it, we are among the luckiest of the separated/divorced couples in Canada. We still respect and to a lesser extent care for each other. We have two underage children that due to the medical condition of our youngest can't live togther so one lives with me and the special needs child lives with her. We of corse exchange the children on the weekends and some weekends I am lucky enough to have both of my children in my home.

The quote from your professor has given me food for thought as I must admit an inherent bios in favour of the UFCW. But I have not experienced the bios or corruption reported by others. I have always found my union to be open to my concerns and to change, when the Constitutionally proscribed method of achieving these ends are followed. I am among the lucky ones if there is any weight to be given to the majority of members on this page. The Atlantic Meatpasckers Union who is trying to replace the UFCW at my plant is an organization that I have been very critical of. I have broken it down to what I feel are it's base components and taken great interest in it's constitution, executive makeup, and reasons for it's existence.

The constitution has a glaring flaw and that is it can be misused by the executive to punish members who spoke out in favour of the UFCW. That being the lack of a hearing or an appeal for charges, should they be brought. Further within that document the process for filing charges is wide open, it would only take one member to state that my actions, statements, or beliefs were contrary to the best interest of the membership and my union card could be forfeit. This would force me into seeking a legal remedy while coping with raising a family without a job.

The executive of the AMU have proven themselves to be less than honourable in their reporting of the facts and the way they have treated my coworkers. Not informing them that the companies obligation to comply with the contract would end upon the Board granting their decertification attempt was unforgivable. This was their first volley against the UFCW, a decertification.

The reason the AMU came into existence according to Paul Saunders the president of the Larsons unit was a letter from the CAW stating they had no interest in either the Larsons or Garden Province Meats plants. Further there is a long history with two members of the AMU executive who also held positions with the UFCW until removed for not filing grievances brought to there attention by UFCW supporters. Now first let me state that all three of the members I speak of are dedicated and apparently believe what they are doing is in the best interest of the membership, this is something we have in common. The problem is the blinders all four of us are wearing and although I have attempted to start a dialogue my efforts have been met with less than open ears. The charges I filed with the local under our constitution no doubt plays a part in this. There is room for change I believe, and there is a proscribe method to that end, bettering the representation for my coworkers is something I cam fight for. Changing the ratio from one voice in four hundred thousand to one voice in ninety may strengthen the individual voice but at the cost of weakening the overall voice. This is fact not fiction and the cornerstone of my position. Corruption can be found in every organization and we must always be accountable in the labour movement for our actions, when that accountability is not present only then should we step outside the framework of our unions to seek justice. The critical eye I have placed on the AMU should in all fairness be placed on my union of choice, I will attempt to do this with an open mind.

In Solidarity Fisher

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Sat, Jul 20, 2002 4:09pm

Fisher . the AMU at Larsons is doing very well in it"s few short months in existence ,which you will find out soon. Being a new union there will be many changes as it grows. These changes will be made by the members in a democratic way, weather in it's consitution or bylaws.

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Sat, Jul 20, 2002 5:33pm

I would like to find out about the pension plans of the presidents of the locals, the BA, the hired staff of UFCW . I bet they are better than the worker they represent. What Kind of pension do you have Bill Pearson.
Downeaster

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sat, Jul 20, 2002 6:30pm

quote:


I would like to find out about the pension plans of the presidents of the locals, the BA, the hired staff of UFCW .


Downeaster

Now there is something that I never put much thought to. As a President of any union, do they receive a better pension than the members that pay their wages? How about union BA's, or Agents, Reps, what type of pension do they get?

aboutunions

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Sat, Jul 20, 2002 7:14pm

ABOUT UNIONS Maybe we could ask Bill Persons How much he makes and to tell tell us about his pension plan .
Downeaster

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sat, Jul 20, 2002 9:36pm

Brother Downeaster, BP has been upfront with what he makes. He has stated that he makes 80,000 a year. As for his pension he would be the only president who will tell us the straight goods even if he knows someone will object.

Hey maybe you guys on the coast could get Mr. Pearson to take over your local and change his union name to say one union. We would just have to get him to give up on the hangup with the name thing.

Speaking of wages, how about this we just found out. A Cupe National Rep in Manitoba with the initials of S.E. makes $71,000 cdn with a 10,000 expense account and a car allowance on top of it all. The Cupe Regional Director, B.M. in Manitoba makes $82,000 a year with an expense account as well. Then there is P.M. who is president of Local 500, president of Cupe Manitoba and an executive of Cupe National. How much to do you think he makes off the sweat off our backs? What pension does P.M. get representing all those factions of Cupe.

Brother Fisher, if you were making this much money would you do what ever it took to stay in power even if it meant running things how you want rather than how the members wanted it? Food for thought- Does money and power corrupt even the strongest union person?

Why is UFCW suing this web site and its administrators? Why do unions have such indepth trial controls? Is it for the members or for the status quo well paid union executives to maintain control? Have you ever seen a union constitution that allows equal monetary access to the local bank account in a union internal dispute? Ever see a union constitution without a trial section? Ever wonder why not?
aboutunions

  • posted by Fisher
  • Sun, Jul 21, 2002 5:45am

quote:


posted by about unions:

Brother Fisher, if you were making this much money would you do what ever it took to stay in power even if it meant running things how you want rather than how the members wanted it? Food for thought- Does money and power corrupt even the strongest union person?


Brother about unions:

My dedication to the labour movement and the beliefs that it is founded on has taken me in many directions. Being among the first on PEI to be connected to the Internet I freely published a monthly news letter for my unit keeping them informed on every facet of the red-meat industry and the labour movement at large. For my efforts all I received was ridicule for my spelling. The news letter lasted three years until the personal cost to me became more than my budget could absorb. I created a website and attempted to collect as many UFCW online locals as I could, this list has been used and adopted by many union sits over the years. Quick links to federal as well as provincial sites where labour legislation was available, the list of sites was more extensive than I will go into today. My site only vanished when family obligations demanded my full attention. I have spent the last ten years educating myself and as many as would listen as to the importance of knowing labour legislation, I have also stood in front of standing committees on legislation reform and fought for workers rights. Non unionised workers on the Island have sought me out and I have assisted them in their compensation cases and have taken a case all the way to the Supreme Court of PEI. Within my unit I have, when asked assisted every member in getting the maximum compensation benefits available to them. I have sat on almost every voluntary labour committee you can think of, from the local to the Federation of Labour levels. Would I exchange my dedication to the labour movement for cash, I believe I would not. I can only hope that the rank and file members who have risen to the top of my union has the same dedication as I do and until shown differently I believe they do.

In Solidarity Fisher

  • posted by Fisher
  • Sun, Jul 21, 2002 6:29am

quote:


posted by Downeaster:
ABOUT UNIONS Maybe we could ask Bill Persons How much he makes and to tell tell us about his pension plan .
Downeaster


Brother Downeaster:

As you should be aware the Ontario Government has made it law that every union executive member earning over fifty thousand dollars a year be published. I have seen this document and the UFCW is among the lowest when it comes to compensating it's members. If you would like a copy, just ask. Being a past treasurer for the PEI Federation of Labour and in the position of negotiating contracts with our only employee, we took the position of leadership in fair compensation for work don. How can we admonish our unions for compensating its executives fairly for the work don. Should we pay these executives and employees only the amount of the job the left to serve the union or should we be an example to fair compensation. The likelihood of either of us being in the position of getting a job with the union is slight to non but that being as it may the rank and file members who get this opportunity should be compensated fairly for the work don. There is a difference between negotiating with an employer who is profit orientated and with a group interested in fair compensation and that difference seams to bother you, why? The amount of union dues we pay is in line with any other union and the representation we receive is among the best in the labour movement. We have the best contract in combined wages and benefits in our industry according to the information I received from the Red Meat Conference and our contract is now being used as an example of what should be fought for. I distributed many copies as requested by members across Canada of our contract and they will be fighting to gain the benefits we already have. Lets work togther to insure we continue to increase our benefits and strengthen/improve our union.

In Solidarity Fisher

  • posted by HJFinnamore
  • Sun, Jul 21, 2002 7:51am

Fisher, again you show your gullibility.

Bill Pearson is one of the few who will voluntarily tell you how much he makes, so let's quit carping about his salary for now.

As for the Ontario "sunshine" law, it really has no impact in telling union members how much their machine heads make. The law requires Union pay to be revealed, not T4 earnings.

The International is a union and a local is a union, so income from those sources have to be reported.

Pension plans, benefit plans, labour councils, federations, benefovlent funds, building funds, education funds and all the businesses associated with those plans and funds aren't unions, so money paid out of those funds don't have to be reported.

In fact union members ususally don't have any legal right to have access to the financial records of those funds because they have access to the "union" financials only.

AFM Hospitality pays directors $700 for each meeting they attend and a thousands a year as a stipend. Does Wayne Hanley receive and report that on his sunshine declaration? Why don't you ask him next time you see him, Fisher.

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Sun, Jul 21, 2002 8:04am

The UFCW keeps telling me that we have the best contract in the industry but I can't get to excited because I find it harder and harder to keep on top of my bills which are increasing each year and my wages and benefits have been frozen for 3 years.A new employee starts off at 10.75 an hour after 24 months he gets 85% of the base rate or 12.15, and 10 months he gets base rate of 14.30. Does anyone out there who works in a meat plant have a better contract as far as wages are concerened?
Downeaster

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Jul 21, 2002 8:37am

UFCW tells me we have the best contract to (I'm in retail). They tell everybody that and can usually prove it because they have an even more stinko contract just down the road from all their so called best contracts.

Where this falls apart for me is how they measure the best contract. Compare it to another contract that they've undermined and it looks pretty good.

Measure it against the rent and groceries a worker has to pay for and their self professed best ain't so hot.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Sun, Jul 21, 2002 10:17am

quote:


I have always found my union to be open to my concerns and to change, when the Constitutionally proscribed method of achieving these ends are followed.


Why do we insist on spending 90% of our time trying to convince the 10% who will never agree with us? I don't care to listen to this guy anymore so please take this to another thread. I don't agree with him, I won't agree with him nor he with me. But your crapping on a thread I am interested in and I would prefer it remain on topic and not become a "lets help the blind man see" thread ok?
Feel free to start another thread and good luck

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Jul 21, 2002 10:35am

Scott, think of it this way....

Fisher gives us an opportunity to discuss the stupid version of what the UFCW is all about. He pukes the official Party line. We respond with our version and facts and document to back it up.

This site has a huge flock of "readers", they visit, read, go away and think, return and read. They do learn a lot from this site. Without guys like Fisher, we would get lazy and just print views and maybe not bother to back those views up with proof.

Fisher isn't blind, he's just trying to curry favour with "da boyze". You can cut and paste his comments from the UFCW sites.

And who knows, Fisher may one day figure out that what he thinks is a bed of roses is nothing but weeds growing out of a pile of manure.

  • posted by Fisher
  • Sun, Jul 21, 2002 11:37am

quote:


posted by weiser:

Fisher isn't blind, he's just trying to curry favour with "da boyze". You can cut and paste his comments from the UFCW sites. .


Scot has a valid point, we have gotten of the very important issue of unions suing members and groups who challenge them. As far as the other issues we must agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Weiser has raised an issue that is of a personal nature. "Curry favour with da boyze" man do you have me wrong. I have become the most hated man in my unit and among the local executive I am described as a pain in the ass. Has this stoped me from voicing my beliefs, no. When members make statements I disagree with I will respond, that is freedom of speech. Using terms like party line and currying favour is like me dismissing everything you say as anti-union propaganda. Working Canadians must learn to work togther and respect differing points of view for there is merit on both sides of this issue.

Now to the issue at hand the law suit against this page and it's administrators. Unions must become more cognisant of what is being said about them and be on guard to defend it's position because no matter how ridiculous the statement if it is repeated enough times it is believed. The courts will decide the issues here but I suspect the suit to be little more than an intimidation attempt, time will tell. And by the way as downeaster will attest if he is as good as his word I make no statements I cannot backup but my opinions are just beliefs based on past history as are yours.

PS Insulting some ones position instead of debating that issue is a sign of weakness any your insults are just that weak. If you cannot support your position to a strong union supporter than either rethink that position or get stronger prof to support it.

In Solidarity Fisher

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Jul 21, 2002 1:02pm

Fisher, as for insulting you personally, I apologize. As for attacking your regurgitation of machine-made baloney, I stand my ground.

  • posted by Downeaster
  • Sun, Jul 21, 2002 1:09pm

Mod edit: Not cool

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Jul 21, 2002 6:40pm

Fisher said:

quote:


Unions must become more cognisant of what is being said about them and be on guard to defend it's position because no matter how ridiculous the statement if it is repeated enough times it is believed.


On one hand, you're right on the money there Fisher. If a union is sleazy enough for long enough, there comes a time when nothing surprises people about it, so yes indeedie, people will believe just about anything that's said about a sleazy union.

On the other hand, you may be living proof that "no matter how ridiculous the statement, if it is repeated enough times it is believed."

I know, I know, you'll think that I'm dissing you again, but you continue to make comments about things like pension plans--ridiculous comments--and we know you have no idea whether they are true or not. You say them because you belive them. You belive them because you've been fed the same stupid line over and over.

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Mon, Jul 22, 2002 3:48pm

In case some people have mistaken this site as anti-union, they are just that, mistaken. Many of us are very very strong unionists as compared to union loyalists who pray to a name rather than an ideology.

Remember just because we refuse to be caught up in the cult worshiping mandates of some unions, we are unionists through and through who demand unions reform or get out of the way. And when they do not reform or step aside, they sue so that they have to do neither. There will eventually be reform, whether it be within or from the outside. Sites like this one and others will be a social force that will eventualy implement change in our unions. The problem within unions has infested trade unions aroung the world and needs immediate attention.

aboutunions

  • posted by Fisher
  • Mon, Jul 22, 2002 5:41pm

Lets try setting aside our differences and concentrating on what we have in common, for I suggest we have more in common than our posts suggest. We all have an intense interest in the labour movement and defending the dignity of working Canadians. We feel that when a workforce is united they can demand there rights instead of requesting that they be complied with. The ideology of being a unionist is the corner stone of our beliefs and when that ideology is violated by individuals within the labour movement it damages that movement.

In Solidarity Fisher

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Fri, Jul 26, 2002 10:10am

Domain name policy absurd when it comes to trademarks

Thursday, July 25, 2002, by MICHAEL GEIST

Last week an Ontario court issued a landmark judgment involving the domain name Canadian.biz. Effectively, it overruled a domain name dispute resolution decision that had called for the transfer of the domain from the original registrant to Molson Breweries. The court's decision does much more than just reverse a plainly wrong initial outcome -- it provides one of the clearest examples of the absurdity of a domain name policy that grants trademark holders (such as, in this case, Molson) rights that extend far beyond those traditionally associated with trademark law. Following years of debate, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers decided in the fall of 2000 to establish seven new generic top-level domains, including dot-biz and dot-info. When it became clear that most of those new domains were to be allocated in either a random or first-come, first-served basis, trademark interests expressed concern that the new domains would provide fertile ground for a fresh round of cybersquatting. Their fear was that speculators would snap up domain names matching their trademarks and then demand sizable payments in return for transferring the domain names.

Read more atwww.globetechnology.com

As well as writing for the Globe and Mail, Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa Law School and director of e-commerce law at the law firm Goodmans LLP. His Web site is www.lawbytes.com. It certainly is an interesting web site for those that are into the legal side of web site domains registration.

aboutunions

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Tue, Sep 17, 2002 12:08am

As a non UFCW member, am I correct in believing that UFCW has shown its ability or lack of ability to even finish sueing this web site. They also appear from the evidence provided on this site not to be able to bargain great collective agreements, or to go all out on campaigns for fight for members jobs.

As a non UFCW member could you answer me as to what do you do great besides spending money on starting law suits?

  • posted by BillPearson
  • Tue, Sep 17, 2002 8:53pm

quote:


As a non UFCW member could you answer me as to what do you do great besides spending money on starting law suits. As a non UFCW member could you answer me as to what do you do great besides spending money on starting law suits?


Seems i've been down this road before, but i hate to leave the question unanswered. Wanted to do it last nite, but i had just finished a 14 hour day. When i got home, i had 5 questions on Ask The Rep at Youareworthmore to answer. During the course of the day, i had given a speech for the United Way, and then spent the next 8 hours struggling to get a contract in at a packinghouse that we had organized two years before. Mind you, i was still tired, because on Sunday i had put 4 hours in at the office and that evening met with a half a dozen Borders Books workers we are trying to organize.

Here's the really cool thing, i ain't whinning. That's what we do as UFCW leaders. Our jobs are is as varied as anyone can imagine. Our Union represents workers who aren't in the highest paid segment of the workforce. Often, it's workers that other Unions don't want or won't touch. While some are quick to point to our shortcomings, they miss the difference we make for workers in nursing homes, grocery stores, packinghouses, drug stores and a variety of other occupations. In the US, our health and welfare benefits are almost across the board wholly employer paid. Our defined benefit plans are exceptional and an unheard of benefit for any other retail worker. Giving workers a voice, especially in jobs where the vast majority of them are non-union, is something that i am proud of.

You can take your shots, lord knows i have, but todays labor movement is fighting for it's existance. You can blame the leadership, you can waste a lot of energy pointing fingers; i'd rather go out and do things to try and change it. Perhaps some will even suggest i'm just trying to suck up to the boyz. The reality for me and a whole shitload of others is we are trying to make a difference in workers lives. Frankly, once i got to mfd, it looked like some of you had that same end in mind. I may disagree how you have gone about it from time to time, but i always thought that was one of the strengths of the labor movement. That is why i openly stated, i disagree with the law suit filed against this site, and am glad the suit hasn't gone any further.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Tue, Sep 17, 2002 10:14pm

quote:


we are trying to make a difference in workers lives.


correction....you appear to be, and that's about it. One guy leading one local. I have yet to see proof of another in the UFCW Bill. I've been waiting....I've even been hoping. Your it.

Tell me Bill, honestly, 1518's elections are in 2003 just months after the new CBA for Safeway and OFG are ratified. They say they'll be working with local 247 on this. Think about it, I have. What happens to elections in the year of a merger???????

The original MFDer's warned everyone who said

quote:


lets give them one more chance. Sure they stuffed the ballot box, everybody knows it, but maybe you guys gave them the scare of their lives and now they'll know if they don't do their job they'll be toast next time". 2003 is going to be tuff and they have the experience, lets see what they do


Brilliant logic. I bet the loman guys have a different point of view.

Let me suggest that they'll deal with OFG first.
-That more people will move over to the exclude personel list
- that junior clerks will get their 20 hrs cap lifted but their wage will top out around $15 bucks and it'll be a 1000hrs progression instead of 520.
- the interior will get nothing and perhaps take a slight roll back because the cost of living is cheaper. [on the Island and in Nelson this already happend]
- OFG will increase the pension contribution
- part time benefits will be on a cost sharing basis, most likely 60/40 or 70/30 but just to be optomistic lets say 50/50
- produce manager will get a 3% raise [highest published rate ya know]
- if a buy-out is offered it will be so a third tier can be instituted and it'll be very similar to the current junior clerk fiasco but with a 32hrs cap or no cap at all
- ATO's, to keep will cost big time, you take your pick what people give up. My guess is if you don't currently have ATO's you won't ever get them meaning pre rad part timers going full time won't be entitled to ATO's in the future.
- Service clerk...well if I was OFG I'd get rid of this class altogether. junior clerks or clerk three's can work anywhere where as service clerks have to stay at the front. Makes no sence don't ya think?
- Off till duties....expect big changes once again.
-rack jobbers...expect more duties going to sales man
-expect to see benefit qualifications increase, meaning the average hrs you have to work to maintain your qualification for benefits will go up from 24 -28 or even 32. Even though dental is paid by 1518 they'll tag that as well you can bet on it.
- increased schedual flexability!!!!! I don't have a crystal ball but it's coming.
-call in language will change...see above

Honestly I couldn't name it all but the fact is this next contract is going to wipe out the MFD's supporting demographic to secure 1518's political safety and bring OFG's cost in line with non union competitors. Just to be sure don't be surprised to see a merger if they get even a wiff that an opposition slate is in the works. No way they'll win even with a stuff and they know it. Witlock will retire Pres emeritus, Sundin may be swept aside as the scape goat and moved across the country and the new guy will glide in here with the winds of change that just won't ever blow hard enough to help anybody. With the 3 locals merged it'll be too big to ever reform. Reformers will stick out like a sore thumb and like siggy said, nobody will risk their neck for another.

The war's over, it was in '99 and even 2000. You missed it for now...they win. Either we start another union and try to go after them, or an astablished union worth joining comes to the rescue. But more likely the industry waits until the employers get tired of the UFCW and boot them out the door for good. Then maybe when they've beaten up on people long enough a new generation of workers will breath new life into a dead idea.

And Bill....your too far away to help anyone in B.C. but even if you were here...who in 1518 could help you? Frank? Kim? I'm at a loss after that I think our home support rep is pretty good but I'm just guessing. How you gonna turn a local around on a dime in just 6 months without any help? who do you know big enough to fill those shoes? and remember...Mike Fraser loves to cut deals of his own so if it gets tough locally OFG can still afford tickets to Toronto. Make me a believer Big guy! show me the way.

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Tue, Sep 17, 2002 10:59pm

I was reading an article in Going Places and I could not help but think of the UFCW.

"And then, of course, there are fraud provisions under the Crimainal Code because -----------constitutes a deceptive selling practice"

You fill in the blank and make the sentence complete. You have three minutes to complete this test. Start ........................now.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Wed, Sep 18, 2002 7:28am

As frustrating as the history of this local is, I think it is important that Local 1518 members give some serious consideration to running a reform slate in the '03 election. There's no doubt that the events surrounding the 99 elections are demoralizing (among other things) but a lot has changed since then and a lot has been learned since then as well.

In 99 you were only beginning to use the Internet as a campaign tool. Now there is a well established site that you could use to get your message out and people are more familiar with the Internet anyway. There is a lot more that you know about your union and how it operates today than you knew in 99.

Local 1518 leaders, while I wouldn't put it past htem to hang on to power any way they think they can, will be under a microscope in the coming campaign. I would expect that this site would be very interesting in covering the campaign, in depth.

I think that those members who want to bring about positive change for their brothers and sisters ought to be thinking about running for office and developing a strategy now. They will be in a better position than the members who opposed the current crop of leaders in 1999. As frustrating as the past may be, think of it now as the beginning of something.

As far as the possibility of a merger is concerned, I suppose the Local 1518 execs could try to pull that. It would still require a vote of the membership wouldn't it? If that doesn't give you a warm feeling, (given the events surrounding the 99 vote), tell your leaders that - at the first hint that a merger is in the works - you'll launch a decertification campaign aimed at changing unions. That ought to make them think twice if nothing else will.

Let me toss out something really radical that has been occurring to me recently: I'm not sure that we should tar everyone in a leadership position the UFCW with the corruption brush. There are some who richly deserve it and I'm all for tarring them whenever an opportunity presents itself. But I wonder if - among the thousands of officials and executives - there are not at least some who are aware of the sad state of affairs within their union and genuinely supportive of change. (No, I don't know of any personally but then, I don't know most of them.)

Bill P. certainly falls into that category. While, as you say Scott, he is one President from one local who has come to this site and been quite supportive of reform, I find it hard to believe that he's the only one out there. Considering their numbers alone, the probability is that there are others. They just need a little prodding to come out and voice their support for change.

It may be worth thinking about making an appeal to those "others" - about the need for reform generally and to get their support for specific actions. Can you ijmagine sending out an email notice to every local saying: "tell Brother Brooke to respect our constitutional rights?" or "support democracy in our union", "let our people vote" or something like that? Could make for effective internal lobbying. It won't change things over night, but it will make the leaders less likely to engage in reformer-busting and will help get the issue of reform "on the screen" (no pun intended).

I'm just brainstorming here. There are a lot of strategies that you can employ in the coming election campaign to give yourselves an advantage and protect against the kind of dictatoring that heppened the last time around.

  • posted by siggy
  • Wed, Sep 18, 2002 7:46am

Geez RV you jes have the bestest ideas ever. Some really good stuff to think on eh (canadian for eh) gang?

  • posted by retailworker
  • Wed, Sep 18, 2002 10:37am

genep@ufcw555.com,President Pronovost,Local 555
news@ufcwlocal56.com,UFCW Local 56,Local 56
local839@unions.com,Local 839,Local 839
rbenson.local870@unions.com,President Benson,Local 870
JCSperry@ufcw324.org,President Sperry,Local 324
Lee@UFCW328.org,President DiIorio,Local 328,Rhode Island
fruney@ufcw791.org,Secretary-Treasurer Runey,Local 791,Massachusetts
ufcw175@IDIRECT.COM,Locals 175 and 633,Locals 175 and 633,Canada
greg@ufcw1400.ca,Special Assistant Eyre,Local 1400,Saskatchewan
ufcw1496@alaska.net,Local 1496,Local 1496,Alaska
bfinley@ufcw227.org,Director Finley,Local 227,Louisville KY
lrussell.local373@unions.com,President Russell,Local 373r,San Francisco
tmcnutt@LOCAL400.ORG,Secretary-Treasurer McNutt,Local 400,Maryland
gwen.local480@unions.com,Secretary-Treasurer Rulona,Local 480, Hawaii
Office@UFCW588.org,Local 588,Local 588,California
dkeene@ufcw700.org,Mr. Keene,Local 700,Indiana
rwathen@ufcw700.org,Director Wathen,Local 700,Indiana
dkeith@ufcw832.mb.ca,Director Keith,Local 832,Manitoba
INFO@UFCW888.ORG,Local 888,Local 888,New York
Labor@ufcw1036.com,Local 1036,Local 1036,California
smccann@ufcw1105.com,President McCann,Local 1105,Seattle
UFCW1459@aol.com,Local 1459,Local 1459,Western Massachusetts
local6@smig.net,Local 6,Local 6,Minnesota
kpalazzo@UCFWLOCAL880.COM
UFCW1099@AOL.COM
rick@ufcw770.org
info@ufcw1776.org
hugh.caballero@ufcw540.org
johnr.rodriguez@ufcw540.org
ufcw1996brad@aol.com
victor@ufcw175.com
UFCW1625@aol.com
ufcw1540@aol.com
joinus1500@AOL.COM
ufcw1442dlelea@AOL.COM
bcarpenter.local1179@unions.com
ufcw135@ufcw135.com
mail@UFCW206.COM
rmk@UFCW23.COM
eduran@ufcw7.com
lgriffiths@ufcwlocal81.org
ufcw876@mindspring.com

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Wed, Sep 18, 2002 7:04pm

I guess it's easy to pigeon toe me as a bitter losing candidate. Your not the first you won't be the last. Maybe people think I feel demoralized because that election was stolen from us and there wasn't anything we could do about it because we couldn't raise enough money to get it before a judge. Well I don't.

I havn't given up on the idea that retail workers in B.C. can feel proud to be members of a participatory, democratic, member interest based union. Quite the opposite. I've just come to the realization that such a union cannot and will not exist within the UFCW.

When I smash my head against a wall one thing becomes abundently clear...it hurts me and does nothing to the wall. Trying to reform the unreformable is just that, smashing your head against a wall and contrary to popular belief I was not the first person to try and unseat Brooke Sundin.

In the late 80's Kay Audette and Bob Adams formed a slate to keep Sundin and his cronies out. Ken Jack ran against Jack Allard and Maruice Gilbert ran against Sundin. [actually Maruice, who grew up next door to bro_Ken G. dropped out prior to the election because of certain phone calls that scared his wife] Ivan limpright was also on that reform slate, so was Dawn Green and Brian Nasu and a whole list of others who opposed Brooke and now work for him. Maybe one day Bob Ives [a former 1518 business agent] could log on and tell us about the morning the ballots were counted in that election....Bob? To bad 'cause that would be really interesting to hear.

Bob Adams, Kay Audette and two others stood alone against Sundin and his band for years. How many re-counts did it take in '93 for Becky Sandberge of Dawson Creek to finally loose her bid for an executive board position agianst a Sundin slate member? Or how about a current "action team" member from Squamish, Suzanne pask, meeting with Brian Pinter and Kelven Monsen in North Vancouver to discuss bringing in the CAW because of the '97 deal? Why is she suddenly such a strong Sundin supporter? Then there's Donna Trembley, against Sundin before, now a big supporter.

Reform efforts have been beaten to death in this local for more than 15 years! Most of the people who've been leading that effort are gone, or going. Nothing has worked and the RCMP don't give a rats ass what happens here. Ask David Brighton about what the Richmond RCMP said to him with regards to his information on the $1,000,000.00 "overpayment" by the International to local 1518 in '96. Better yet ask Dority why the local wasn't put in trustee because of it!

As for this and other web sites, it's not enough. This web site was around when OFG said they were closing up shop on Vancouver Island without concessions. In Nelson they even had meetings with the staff about how concessions could help them stay in business. When the union tucked tail and ran for cover after Tom Fawke's infuriating press bite Siggy and I were in Victoria the next day to face a very angry room crowed with people demanding answers. We told them that they had rights, that the employer violated the law and couldn't close the stores under these circumstances. We brought copies of the section of the labour code that supported our position. We passed out copies of the letter form David Brighton to Brooke Sundin, a letter on still on this web site, asking the union to fight for people.

I went to Naniamo and attended two meetings with the same information. I stood up and asked Frank question after question about why the union wasn't protecting the rights of the people in these stores. The bottom line...they wouldn't file a section 12 aginst 1518, instead they took the concessions because they're union told them too. I was left stranded in downtown Naniamo and I had to walk to Duke point, some 20-30 miles to catch the fairy home. The sad sad truth is I could fill this whole thread up with case after case where the MFD fought for peoples rights, gave them information to support it and still nothing happend. For Sundin and his "action team" it's always been business as usual.

Enough is enough already! The same effort it takes to put together another slate could build another union or aid in an established unions raid on the UFCW. And Local 247 has to be stopped from doing anymore deals. You can't reform 1518 and still have 247 doing cut throat deals it just won't work. And don't think for a min Dority is going to step in and help, he hasn't since '89 and he's certainly not going to let you raid another UFCW local.

I think we have an opportunity to inform, educate and empower people to build a union movement worthy of supporting. Rather than focusing on things we can't change why not focus on creating a constiution and by-laws that people can adopt to start their own union? and the various laws and obsticals to starting a union people need to know so they can put forth the kind of movement we all want to belong to. Everything from respectable wages and saleries to how the union should opperate and function internally. The role of stewards and ideas for education programs for all future members. Then when a group of people [like Downeasterner's group] want to give it a shot they can cookie cutter any lable they want to stamp on it and a way they go. A new union is born thanks to help from the MFD. Kind of creating your own union 101.

Or you guys can go about beating your heads against that wall until hell freezes over

  • posted by siggy
  • Wed, Sep 18, 2002 7:59pm

The stuff you're talking 'bout Scott was the beginning of the end of the best retail agreement and the end of solidarity in 1518.

Members listening to reps (they were still called reps then), after losing that election, rip the incumbent_executive day after day was destructive enough.

The real punch was when the leftover_disenchanted_losing_slate made the about face and suddenly started chanting Sundin ... Sundin.

  • posted by kilroy
  • Wed, Feb 12, 2003 3:40pm

This stinks. The net is filled with smut and filth and they want to silence you? God help us. Where do I send a donation for your defense fund?

  • posted by sleK
  • Wed, Feb 12, 2003 6:39pm

Whoa!
Back from the dead.

quote:


Where do I send a donation for your defense fund?


When, and if , we ever actually end up in court, we'll let you know.

Thanks though!

  • posted by verity tango
  • Wed, Feb 12, 2003 10:35pm

Maybe it should be sent to "Save the Parkinson Decision Fund", cause Brooke and Ivan don't give a shit.

  • posted by siggy
  • Thu, Feb 13, 2003 7:28am

Yeah what sleK ^^said^^.

Thanks Kilroy, always nice to know the smoke hasn't blinded everyone.

Tell us about your travels, where've you been, who've you seen?

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Fri, Feb 14, 2003 4:00am

The truth will be our best defence. And it's piled up high and deep!

  • posted by <middleclassAMERICA>
  • Sat, Feb 14, 2004 10:44pm

To owner of MILK BARN in LAKEWOOD.....
You shop at Walmart every day to stock your shelves. Walmart has shown when they come to town, they destroy and eliminate MOM AND POPS stores like you!!!! Get a clue your cutting your own throat.

  • posted by sleK
  • Sat, Feb 14, 2004 10:50pm

^^ wtf??

  • posted by Blackcat
  • Sun, Feb 15, 2004 9:43am

^^^ LOL. Drugs and the internet do not mix....

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Feb 15, 2004 11:42am



I wondered where the lawsuit went, thanks for finding it middleclassAMERICA.

Not only did you find it but you found it so close to the two year anniversary since it was served up. What a coincidence eh or is it?

  • posted by Todd Jordan
  • Sun, Oct 3, 2004 8:22pm

Keep up the good fight!

  • posted by sheila
  • Sun, Oct 3, 2004 8:59pm

wannabecaw-

you don't wannbe be ufcw, but you don't wannabe caw either. They're one in the same. One just comes in a prettier package.

© 2024 Members for Democracy