Members for Democracy Archive

Cash for Concessions: Exposed!

Earlier this month, we brought you disturbing news about a payment of $1.5 million that UFCW Canada - the UFCW's Canadian national office - apparently accepted from Loblaw Companies during the course of secret negotiations for the RCSS deal. That deal provided Loblaws with Wal-martized wages and benefits at its Real Canadian Superstores. The $1.5 million - to be paid over a three year period - was in addition to $1.35 million in payments that the three UFCW Locals involved in the negotiations accepted from the hugely profitable Canadian grocery retailer.

We invited UFCW officials to comment on the payment and to respond to the following questions:

1. Did Loblaw Companies offer and did the UFCW National Office accept a payment of $1.5 million during the RCSS negotiations?

2. Did that offer play a role in bringing those negotiations to a successful conclusion?

3. If yes, how do you justify your behaviour? How is this not a payoff?

So far, UFCW officials have not responded. That's too bad.

In our view, UFCW members, particularly those who are affected by the RCSS deal, have a right to know what their representatives did at the bargaining table. They weren't able to vote on the deal because their union - at Loblaw's insistence - didn't let them. They weren't able to ask questions about the substantial payments their union accepted from their employer just before the deal came together because their union didn't tell them about those. Now they know.

If their union accepted money from their employer in the course of those negotiations, members have a right to know that and are entitled to a full and frank explanation of why the money was accepted, how it's being used and whether or not the exchange of cash played a part in the conclusion of the negotiations. In the absence of such fullness and frankness, how can members ever be sure that their employer didn't simply buy their union's acquiescence? Whether the offer of money influenced the outcome of those negotiations is a legitimate question that deserves an answer. That's especially so given what the UFCW agreed to in the end: A package of concessions that undercuts Wal-Mart's wages and acquiescence to the company's demand that there be no ratification vote. It's even more so when we consider that members are being asked to give their union officials the green light to enter into yet another round of mid-contrac t negotiations with Loblaw Companies.

In the interests of further informing the thousands of working people affected by this deal, we've decided to post the documents upon which our initial report about the $1.5 mil was based. As stated in our earlier story, we will not disclose the source(s) of these documents but have good reason to believe that the source(s) are credible and that these documents are authentic. We believe that the four documents you are about to see demonstrate that an offer of money was made by Loblaw Companies late in the negotiations. The offer was sweetened up considerably as the negotiations headed towards an impasse over the issue of ratification. The offer was accepted by the UFCW. The impasse was resolved. The deal was done. There was no ratification. Check it out and decide for yourself.

from the bargaining notes:

quote:

---

p8#5 - Application - (ABOTTING/SAME MALL
- $150K/Local 03 04 05
$500K NATIONL. 03 04 05
- RCSS - rec. to ufcw. - de to be worked out.

---

Having been the applicant in the Duty of Fair Representation complaint at the Ontaio Labour Relations Board... I want to remind everyone that the Board states in two decisions Dec 8 2003 and Nov 1 2004 that the Union "is free to evaluate the impoper or illegal demand and decide what to do about it" paragragh 98.

what a proverbial crock of shit, every Ontario citizen, public official or officer of the law should have such rights. Why is okay to shit on employees and break the law if you are a union?

Documents such as these should and will be handed to the members so they can make a well informed decision. Also, so that every member can truly know how shallow the loyalty of union executives is towards the people who pay their salaries. How can an organization, whose very job entails using the trust of the members to ensure fair job practices, look at themselves in the mirror every morning. These morons who call themselves executives are protecting the only jobs that matter to them; their own!

Come on guys, lighten up; it's only a million five. Heck they took in over 200 million dollars last year. This is peanuts.

Actually, i do believe this was just part of Michael's dowry for the marriage.
I'll save you the read, just skip to the last line and it says it all: On March 2, 2004 National Director Michael J. Fraser was elected as International Executive Vice President, being the first Canadian elected to the UFCW International Executive Committee.

My compliments to the two local union officers who wanted to do the right thing and let the members vote. Too bad the International has that kind of ability to squeeze folks to do the wrong thing.

If these documents are true, it may well be their biggest embarassment yet...and Lord knows there has been piles of them. This is as shameful as it gets.

I expect they'll take that line from the movie Guide For the Married Man..."Deny, Deny, Deny." If the deal was worth taking, you had an obligation to tell the members. Nothing like a little full disclosure to clense the soul, too bad it had to come from your friends at MFD.

It is curious, in the US, this would be illegal. Does Canada not have laws that prevent this behavior?

Well, it does not surprise me to see these documents. With a piece of shit like Corporon running local 1000a you can see that this fat piece of barnyard dense granite trash shit loves money in his pocket. Look at this fucken stinkin, smelly, baboon waddling clown. He must be looking over his shoulders everyday he goes to the NEW OFFICE in Woodbridge. He knows dam well that his new building was paid for by Loblaws. He loves sitting in his swivel leather chair also paid for by Loblaws. Yes, Corporon, keep looking over you shoulders because your members are not stupid. We know that this union is a greedy hungry money easily swayed bunch of crooks getting financial gains so that one day soon that you all will be running from this mess that you have created to leave to someone else to clean up. You have heard of the saying: " What goes around comes around" You union bastards can run, but you will be caught in a spider's web. What will you do then? Cry your way out? I don't think so... you will pay the price of what you have done to the members who bust their asses off everyday to make an honest living and to be loyal and you run with our money. Shame on you, you fucken asswipes. Eveyone of you union Bastards will be nervous and looking over your shoulders because you know you are so guilty of ruining members livelihoods. Shame on you. Shame on you. Money is the root of all evil. The members know of your corruption and this up coming vote will be voted down. You bastards can squirm till 2006.

There are laws against this kind of payola in this province. That's the totally repugnant thing about what's happening. The Ontario Labour Relations Act at Section 70 states the following: (Read the parts that I've emphasized and especially the part about "financial or other support":

quote:

---

70. No employer or employers' organization and no person acting on behalf of an employer or an employers' organization shall participate in or interfere with the formation, selection or administration of a trade union or the representation of employees by a trade union or contribute financial or other support to a trade union, but nothing in this section shall be deemed to deprive an employer of the employer's freedom to express views so long as the employer does not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence.

---

You'll notice that the prohibition on "financial or other support" is not qualified by words like "at the time of certification" or "to the point that it is obvious that the union is employer dominated" or "in amounts greater than $2.85 million" or any other crap like that which would indicate that the legislators had intended this law to apply in certain circumstances only.

No doubt, this section was intended to apply to company unions at the time of certification but, in the absence of any express language to this effect, it was intended to apply to any other situation where "financial or other support" was provided by an employer to a union. Why would this be? Well shit, probably so that unions didn't become corrupted and subject to influence from employers who were willing to do the payola thing to get their way.

The Board doesn't get many complaints under this Section and I would suggest that this is because there are not a lot of unions out there that accept payola but when it does, it is supposed to give the legislation a a meaning that is consistent with the words in the Act instead of "except where "this" or except where "that" or except where Wal-mart is coming and the union has to take a stand" or any of that kind of crap.

What's really ironic is that the UFCW won a landmark case involving this very provision back in the 1980's before Cliff Evans took it over and turned it into a human resources management business (see the Cabral Foods Inc. decision)

In his DFR complaint about the sleazy secret RCSS deal, Ben Blasdell cited Section 70 in relation to the financial support 9the $1.35 million) that the 3 locals received. I don't think that he knew about the $1.5 million at the time of the complaint. Vice Chair McLean declined to even acknowledge his claim under this section. In a "decision" issued just after Ben's submissions and the replies of the UFCW and Loblaws were in (and before any hearing had been conducted) he "narrowed" the issues that he would deal with at the "consultation" (an informal process that is not a hearing that the OLRB has been using since about 1997 to dump DFR complaints) to the three set out in this http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onlrb/2003/2003onlrb15115.html decision of October 8, 2003. In this "decision" the Vice Chair dismissed Ben's argument about the discriminatory impact of the deal (because he misunderstood the argument, not because it had no merit) and he declined to even acknowledge the Section 70 claim.

McLean's ruling http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onlrb/2003/2003onlrb16036.html of December 8, 2003 did not address the Section 70 issue and that stands to reason since McLean decided (most unjudiciously at the very beginning) that he didn't want to deal with it. When Ben cited this in his application for reconsideration (which was referred to McLean for disposition - just another one of those things-that-don't-make-sense-that-LRB's-do), he had something really convoluted to say about it:

This is the full text of McLean's ruminations in his reconsideration decision http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onlrb/2004/2004onlrb127728.html of November 11, 2004 about Ben's claim that Loblaws had provided financial support to the UFCW when it gave the three locals a total of $1.35 million. It's without a doubt the most bizarre series of statements that I've ever seen in an OLRB decision. I've included some comments as to why I feel this way in the text of his decision (in bolded text).

quote:

---

The Section 70 Complaints

37. The applicant asserts that the Board failed to deal with an argument it has regarding section 70 of the Act. While the applicant did not file a section 70 application, the Board agrees that it as argued at the consultation, but was not addressed in the December 8 decision. (OK, so he raised the issue and you dealt with it finally). The Board reconsiders this aspect of its decision since it is clear that it inadvertently failed (oh yeah I'll bet it was inadvertent_ to address this part of the application even though it was clearly raised and addressed at the consultation and was identified as an issue in the December 8 decision (no it wasn't). The Board's decision is amended by adding the following.

38. This part of the applicant's case has two distinct elements:

1. that Loblaws interfered in the administration of the trade union when it precluded the trade union from holding a vote of its membership as a pre-condition to entering any agreement regarding the new superstores; and/or

2. that Loblaws' payment of $450,000 to the trade union, as required by the agreement, constitute "financial or other support" to a trade union by an employer which is precluded by section 70 of the Act.

39. Section 70 of the Act states:

70. No employer or employers' organization and no person acting on behalf of an employer or an employers' organization shall participate in or interfere with the formation, selection or administration of a trade union or the representation of employees by a trade union or contribute financial or other support to a trade union, but nothing in this section shall be deemed to deprive an employer of the employer's freedom to express views so long as the employer does not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence.

40. The applicant's first argument under section 70 of the Act is most readily dealt with. The Board has repeatedly said that only a trade union can bring an application which alleges a violation of section 70 of the Act (that's bullshit). As the Board held in Dufferin Aggregates, [1983] OLRB Rep. July 1031:

7. On numerous occasions the Board has considered the status of an employee to bring a matter before the Board without the concurrent support of his union. There are some circumstances where the Board has declined to process an employee's individual complaint "some circumstances" isn't the same a "the Board has repeated said that only a trade union can bring an application of this type. In T.I.A. Limousine Operators [1979] OLRB Rep. Aug. 810 an individual employee filed a complaint with the Board alleging that his employer had breached sections 56 (now 64) and 58 (now 66) of the Act. The employee maintained that he had been discharged from his employment because his employer thought he had been active in the formation of a trade union. The employer challenged the employee's status to bring the complaint because no trade union had joined the employee in the filing of his complaint. The Board upheld the employer's objection, in part, and dismissed that aspect of the complaint alleging a breach of section 56 (now 64) of the Act. The Board held that a complaint alleging interference with the trade union must be brought by a trade union and not and individual employee. At p. 811 the Board said,

While the Board in A.A.S. Telecommunications, supra, was dealing with a managerial person it is clear from its statement that a section 79 complaint alleging a violation of section 56 of the Act must be brought by a trade union and cannot be brought by an individual employee. For this reason the complaint in respect of section 56 in the instant case is dismissed.

The basis of the Board's decision T.I.A. Limousine Operators denying the individual the opportunity to bring an application under section 64 of the Act is that section 64, which precludes employers from interfering with trade unions, protects union rights as long as the individual was established to be an employee under the Act, the Board was willing to entertain his individual complaint under section 66 of the Act to protect his own right not to be discharged for union activity.

41. In my view, the applicant has no standing to make an application which alleges that the employer interfered with the trade union, only the trade union does. The trade union's reasons for not complaining about the employer's conduct are set out in the December 8 decision. There is no need to repeat them here. The Board finds nothing improper in its reasons. (The Act prohibits "financial support" not "financial support where the union doesn't have a proper reason for not complaining about the employer's financial support".).

42. I think it likely that the applicant does have the standing to bring a complaint (he said contradicting his previous statement_ about that provision of the agreement which required the employer to pay $450,000 to the trade union. While the Board's decision in Dufferin Aggregates and others like it might also arguably preclude an application by an employee which alleges a violation of the "financial or other support" provisions of section 70, I am not sure that is the case. Certainly, a trade union is unlikely to complain that it is receiving financial or other support (duh). Accordingly, it must be that either another trade union or an employee could bring a complaint. Regardless, it is not necessary for me to decide this issue Why not? Cuz you decided long ago that this guy's going to lose, right?. For the purposes of this decision I will assume, without finding, that the applicant does have standing (you're supposed to "decide" - we're not paying you the big dollars to "assume").

43. The Board has rarely, if ever, dealt with a complaint by an employee that a trade union has received financial or other support (yes it has, see Cabral Foods Inc., it's a famous UFCW case - Corporon knows all about it cuz he's in it) However, the Board has dealt with complaints under parallel provisions of the Act, like sections 15 and 53. Those sections state:

15. The Board shall not certify a trade union if any employer or any employers' organization has participated in its formation or administration or has contributed financial or other support to it or if it discriminates against any person because of any ground of discrimination prohibited by the Human Rights Code or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.(That doesn't apply in this case. Ben isn't alleging that the company contributed financial support to the UFCW at the time of certification so why mention it?)

53. An agreement between an employer or an employers' organization and a trade union shall be deemed not to be a collective agreement for the purposes of this Act if an employer or employers' organization participated in the formation or administration of the trade union or contributed financial or other support to the trade union.(Yes, that's a good section. It relates to one of the arguments that Ben was making. Thanks for noticing. What are you going to do about it?)

44. In Continuous Mining Systems Limited, [1990] OLRB Rep. Apr. 404, the Board discussed the meaning of these sections as follows:

7. The following passage from Edwards v. Edwards (1952), 52 CLLC 17,027 is often cited in Board jurisprudence as authority for the rationale which underscores section 13 and the approach the Board should take in dealing with that section:

The section is clearly aimed at "company-dominated" trade unions which are not entitled to be certified, on the theory that a trade union fostered by an employer cannot be considered as having been freely chosen by employees. The section designates conduct by means of which an employer might seek to confine the broad right confined by section 3 and is therefore to be called into play where that purpose appears. We consider it is intended to be applied where employer activities are of such a character or are of such proportions that it is reasonable to infer that employees have not exercised a free choice in the matter of the selection of a bargaining agent, or where an employer has given material assistance to a trade union in connection with its organizational or other activities; where, in other words, the particular applicant is not truly the chosen bargaining agent of the employees concerned. It is argued that because of its explicit language, section [13] need only be literally construed and mechanically applied. We suggest that it can properly be interpreted only by reference to what is its obvious intent: to prohibit the certification of any trade union which, because of the nature of its relationship with an employer, is not qualified to act on behalf of employees in their relations with their employer.(Nice try McLean, but we're not stupid. This decision dealt with employer domination of a union at the time of certification - not at some later time when "an agreement between an employer's organization and a trade union" was reached after the employer "contributed financial support to the union".)

8. This passage was quoted with approval in Ontario Hydro, [1989] OLRB Rep. Feb. 185 where the Board then held;

"The need to be cautious and purposive rather than literal in its interpretation and application of section 13 has been a regular theme in the Board's decisions. If it were otherwise, section 13 could be used by employers to accomplish the very thing it was intended to prevent: interference in their employees' right to be represented by the trade union they select on a majoritarian basis." (Nice try again but this is not a case where some workers used the company phone to call a union organizer, OK? It's completely different so do that cautious and purposive thing.)

75. The Board has on several occasions addressed the proposition that involvement in a trade union's affairs or organizing campaign by persons who exercise managerial functions within the meaning of subsection 1(3)(b) amounts to employer support within the meaning of section 13.... Later decisions, however, rejected the automatic application of section 13 in these circumstances, as the Board noted in Addidas Textile (Canada) Ltd., [1980] OLRB Rep, May 639, where (at paragraph 6) it said this about what is now section 13:

The purpose of the section, in keeping with the scheme of the Act, is to maintain the necessary arm's length relationship between employers on the one hand, and trade unions, as representatives of employees, on the other.(Yeah that works for us. Why didn't you use that premise in making your decision? Loblaws must have one hell of an arm if it can give the union $1.35 million for some concessions and as promise to deprive the members of their right to ratify. How "arm's length" is arm's length?)

... The purpose of the section is to prevent the certification of a trade union which is party to a "sweetheart deal" with an employer or is the recipient of employer support so that it does not owe its sole allegiance [sic] to those whom it is certified to represent. The Board has consistently applied the section having regard to its underlying purpose.(So why doesn't Section 70 contain language that confines its applicability to "at the time of certification"?)

(For a purposive approach to section 13 in quite another context see University Toronto, [1988] OLRB Rep. March 325 where the Board found that continued access to employees through an internal mail system by an employee association which was seeking to assist CUPE's organizing campaign was not a contravention of section 13 of the Act). (As I've already said, this isn't a case where some workers used the company email to talk union. Why do you keep characterizing what happened here as something like that?)

45. It is useful at this stage to set out the applicant's allegation regarding section 70:

Especially troubling is the Union's acquiescence to the Company's demand that the amended agreement not be put to the members for ratification, and the payment to the Union, and its sister locals, of $450,000.00 by the Company. The Applicant asserts that the former places the Company in violation of Section 70 and that the latter renders the amended agreement null and void by virtue of the provisions of the Act.

46. There are two points worth noting. First, the employer is not a responding party to this application.(No, it's an Intervenor. It's a party to the proceedings and was from the outset.) None of the relief requested is directed at the employer on this part of the application. (Yes it is. Ben asks for the deal to be deemed null and void. How does that not affect the employer?) Second, it is apparent that the applicant, although not stated explicitly, also purports to rely on section 53 of the Act (sure, what's wrong with that?and quite possibly section 15 No, he never once said that the money changed hands at the time of certification.).

47. The allegations made in the application do not rise to nearly the level of employer support to sustain a case of a violation of section 15, 53 and/or 70 (How's that? What's the right level of employer support? You could, in the least, tell us that much couldn't you?). The only allegation is the payment, along with the assertion that the mere payment constitutes a violation. (Yes. The allegation is that financial support was received. The Act prohibits that. What more do you need? If the receipt of $450,000 by Local 1000a or $1.35 million by the three Locals doesn't constitute "financial or other support" from an employer, you could in the least tell us how it doesn't.) There is no allegation that the union has become employer dominated.(I think that's implicit in the Act: It's unlawful for unions to receive financial support from employers because that makes them employer dominated. In the alternative, Sec. 70 doesn't include a qualifier like "unions that are employer dominated may not accept financial or other support from employers. It prohibits financial support from employers to unions - period.) There is no suggestion that the union has, in other ways, become subservient to the employer. (I think that's the whole premise behind the complaint!) For example, there was no suggestion to the Board that the trade union has not continued to file grievances against the employer on behalf of employees.(Sorry pal but "no sale". I don't see anything in Sec. 70 that says, "a union will not accept financial support from an employer if that means that it will stop filing grievances.)

---

This is how under-enforcement or non-enforcement of laws that provide rights to disadvantaged groups takes place. This decision is, from start to finish, an affront to our collective intelligence. It must not be allowed to stand and I for one am happy that Ben is proceeding to judicial review.

Everyone can be well assured that these revelations will form a central part of the agument before the divisional court.

quote:

---

In a quick read of the facts, it seems the board was willing to drop the charges because the 1.35 million arguably was put into the training and education funds...which is in kind there to benefit the members. That seems a wholly illogical reason to not let members vote, but boards do some wierd shit.

---

The fact of the matter is that this money wasn't a contribution to any existing training and ed fund. That's what it looks like "on a quick read" and I'm sure that that's all the OLRB gave it.

On a closer read, you'll notice that the money was a contribution for "each Local's Education and Communication initiatives" - that's quite different from "a training and education fund".

quote:

---

21. The parties also had discussions about contributions towards the education and communication funds maintained by each Local. Most unions have similar funds. These funds are used by UFCW Locals for a variety of initiatives including steward and occupational health and safety committee member training, job related skills training, literacy and general computer skill training for members and the like. Under some collective agreements, including the agreement between Local 1977 and Zehrs, the Locals are able to get employers to agree to make contributions based on a certain number of cents per hour worked by members. Under other collective agreements, the Locals are able to get employers to agree to make lump sum contributions. Application of the hourly contribution rate of $.15/hour would have resulted in an annual cost to the employer of more than $1 million. The Loblaw representatives initially resisted making any contribution to the Locals' funds, but ultimately accepted that a negotiated agreement could include lump sum payments of $150,000 per year towards each Local's Education and Communication initiatives.

---

The UFCW have, in my view, been less than forthcoming in their submissions about where the money was going to go and what purposes it was to serve.

If the money was just as contribution to an existing Education and Training Fund (that's what they're actually called - not "Education and Communication funds, why not say that's where it's going?

If, as is stated in the June 8, 2003 Discussion Paper, these monies were "in lieu" of contributions to Training and Ed funds called for in the Locals' collective agreements, then why no just put the monies into those funds?

"The Locals' communication and education initiatives" can capture just about anything that can arguably constituted communication or education. This differs from an established "fund" which has (or should have) a stated specific purpose, a set of books, a person or persons who are responsible for ensuring that the fund is used for its intended purpose and so on.

By blabbering away about their "education and communication funds" which are really "education and training funds" and then stating that the monies are to "communication and education initiatives" the UFCW is, in my view, engaging in a distortion. The use of caps on "Communication and Education" is also intended to give the impression that the non-specific "communication and education initiatives" are the same as training and education funds. They're not.

For an institution like the OLRB to fail to take note of this distinction is very troubling. Vice Chair McLean was either grossly disinterested in the issue before him or was going along with the UFCW's spinning in the hope that nobody would notice what the words really said.

YIKES!

No wonder these guys are pissing themselves. There's lots of closed doors and whispered mutterings. I don't even think that Cliff could put a lid on this latest MFD hand grenade.

I think the most important thing to do is to raise awareness of what's been going on in as many places as you can. Talk about it with people - other members, other unions, your local media, your MPP. Fax, email or write to the Minister of Labour and the Premier and send them a message:

This is not right. Unions should not be going into backrooms, negotiating in secret, taking millions of dollars from the employer and then giving the employer concessions and preventing members from voting on the deal. Put it just like that - to neutralize the weasels' spin doctoring about how they had no choice and how they saved jobs and how every union takes big payments (or is that payoffs) when it bargains in secret with employers.

People know so little of what is "typical" and "normal" in labour-management relations that when goofs like Corporon and Fraser say, "this is normal" they sort of don't have any reason to dispute that. Give them a reason to dispute it.

This is not normal. Most unions don't take millions of dollars from employers in contributions for "initiatives". Most employers would gag at the prospect of giving a union this kind of support. Unions that accept contributions to training and education and other special funds, negotiate those contributions in collective bargaining and put the final deal to the members for ratification. That way if the members can know what the deal is and reject it if if smells.

The UFCW boys thought they could fly under the radar this time. Their luck ran out. Take this stuff and run with it. It reeks so badly most people won't have trouble concluding that it's shit.

In the early 1900's it was common for police departments in large American cities to have "widows and orphans funds".

The official story was that these funds were charities that raised money for the families of police officers killed in the line of duty.

The reality was that many of them were used as conduits for bribes by criminal organizations to police organizations and their staff - from Chiefs of Police right on down to the coppers on the beat.

The widows and orphans' funds made great pipelines for payola. Their charitable nature, the fact that they did do some fundraising for widows and orphans and often had some upstanding folks on their boards or in the ranks of their volunteers made them almost impervious to inquiry by skeptics who suspected the worse.

These funds and the purposes to which they were put remind me of the use of the "training and ed" funds as conduits for cash by unions that are willing to trade their members' interests for a steady flow of money that benefits...others.

In the case of the UFCW, I can't help but think about how the contributions to the union's training and ed funds have continued to flow from the major employers in a decade that has been characterized by concession bargaining, the elimination of full time jobs and the introduction of two and even three tier wage scales (that now in some cases provide for minimum wage for large numbers of workers).

This correlation is a little too coincidental IMHO. Likewise it's really hard to fathom how employers who have no regard whatsoever for the economic well being of their workers seem, at the same time, to care so deeply about their training. Given the deskilling of jobs that has occurred in the retail food industry, I have to wonder just how much training workers need in this industry.

The reality is that very few employers give unions money for "training and education". Most employers don't want unions training and educating their workers. They'd rather do what training needs to be done themselves.

The problem is few people, outside of those who actually work in the murky labour relations field, understand the "norms" of labour management relations.

So when the UFCW says "most unions have these funds", they believe it because they don't know what the norms are.

And when they tell the OLRB that "most unions have these funds", the OLRB - although in a position to know that this is, at best, a great stretching of the truth - doesn't care.

In the reality is that most unions don't have these funds. And out of those that do have some form of employer-funded training programs, I'm not aware of a single one that has accepted a payment of $3 million from an employer while bargaining in secret for a deal that its members didn't get to ratify (because the employer didn't want a ratification vote).

Here's an interesting little project: Why don't we email the leaders of the largest Canadian unions (CUPE, CAW, USWA and a few others) and ask them:

quote:

---

Dear Union Leader: We are conducting a survey about employer-funded union training and education funds. Please take a few minutes to answer a few straight-forward questions:

1. Does your union have a special fund of funds related to training and education?

2. If yes, does this fund receive contributions from employers? If whole?______ In part?_________

3. How much money did employers contribute to your fund in 2004? If you don't want to be precise, tell us if it was:

- Over $100,000
- Over $500,000
- Over $1,000,000
- $3,000,000 or more

4. Has your union ever taken contributions from an employer for your fund while in concession bargaining?

5. Has your union ever taken contributions from employers to your fund while secretly bargaining mid-term alterations to a collective agreement?

6. Has your union ever declined to allow members to ratify a new or amended collective agreement because an employer (from whom your union was receiving financial contributions) didn't want them to?

7. Do you provide financial statements in relation to your training and ed funds to your members (so that members know how much money is coming in, how it's being used, etc.).

8. Do you think it's right for a union to accept $2.85 million dollars from an employer while agreeing to a pay scale that includes the minimum wage?

---

Anyone want to take a crack at circulating this?

In the case of the UFCW/Loblaws exchange, call me a skeptic, but I strongly doubt that a company as ruthless and as backward in its treatment of its workers would donate $3 million to the union so that the workers - for whom it has nothing but contempt - can become better educated.

The reality is, they gave the UFCW $3 million to further their own business interests. What they got out of the RCSS deal furthers their interests in leaps and bounds.

After the deal was revealed, the UFCW propagandized extensively about how it was saving jobs, staving off concessions in 2006 and protecting the wages and working conditions of existing members. It's becoming clear already that existing members have little certainty that their jobs are protected, that their wages aren't going to be reduced and that there will be no concessions - in 2005.

Who benefitted from the $3 million payment? Only the most devout sheep can screw their brains around to the point where they can see a benefit to the members.

quote:

---

After the deal was revealed, the UFCW propagandized extensively about how it was saving jobs, staving off concessions in 2006 and protecting the wages and working conditions of existing members. It's becoming clear already that existing members have little certainty that their jobs are protected, that their wages aren't going to be reduced and that there will be no concessions - in 2005.

---

Yes, and even as the deal was propagandized to the members, the $3 million was glossed over at best and totally hidden at worst.

Three million is something to crow about unless there's something to be ashamed of. Why weren't they sreaming, "We just screwed Loblaws out of $3 million!"?

Hey emunster, we have to make sure all members are fully informed of this trash and of that idiot Corporon. We really have to push the members to vote NO!! This will then put the union in an "Open Period" which they definetly do not want. We want to get this decertification process started. Let's see Corporon and his hillbillies squirm.

quote:

---

posted by bb:
apparently all you need is 7 names and a constitution and a election.

---

Let's talk. The International Shit Disturbers Union is ready (very serious on this one). The first local has to be 666 though. 7 into sixes. The numerology of it is so powerful.

You'd faint if you saw our proposed constition, so we won't show you... yet.

The world needs a new union. UFCW is going down hard. The pricks will be begging the ISDU to merge. And we'll just continue to bitch-slap 'em.

I would like to say thanks to whoever came forward to submit the exposed corruption by the union. This kind of information just doesn't come from anywhere. These documents had to have come from someone from inside the union or even inside the company. Someone saw the corruption and knew it had to be exposed because they knew it wasn't right for the union to shaft the very members who pay their salary. Thank you, it makes my job alot easier convincing members into believing that their union is not looking after their best interests.

Where is Info? He thought this was a right proper deal? Any comments on the payola Dan?

If I remember history correctly payola was bad at least if you a d.j.

Last I heard the 2 sides were at the table talking and negiotating.

Interesting side note if the stores go back to the table in the next few months 1000a will have 2 warehouses in a strike position, possibly a little leverage to use to get better deals for all involved.

Interesting thought BP brought up in another thread about who leaked this and why

"It raises immediate questions about how and why this document suddenly came to MFD's doorstep. Was it a union officer/member who was unhappy by what happened? If so, more power to him/her. OR, was an employer who saw the potential of getting rid of the union by exposing their weaknesses "

Where the documents came from is neither here nor there. It's what they say that matters. What they say is that $2.85 million changed hands in the course of the RCSS deal and that $1.5 million of that was tabled as the talks were bogging down over the issue of ratification.

I think the UFCW officials who did the deal should explain why they saw their way clear to dropping their demands for ratification just after the offer of $1.5 million to the national office was made. I'm sure there must be an explanation other than "because the company offered us money" - so let's hear it.

typical ad hominen argument. attack the person, the reason , their motive anything to discredit something about the person instead of the idea.

who cares the reason for the leak.

the little boy stuck his finger in the dike, he saved the town from ruination. who cares why he put his finger in the dike?

why did the UFCW accept boatloads of money and not let members vote on a so-called amendment to their own contract?

quote:

---

posted by Info:
Oh yeah nice spin RV but wrong.It does matter where and why something is done.For example if I just hit someone it is assualt but if I hit the same person while defending myself it is self defence. Same action in striking someone but the reason makes all the difference.

---

This is fun! Let's continue with your brilliant analogy (because it does matter)...

a0 You gave someone a black eye. You've probably done it before. You're a hot-tempered abuser. Should your victim go to the police? Should they take a photo of the bruises? Should their family be allowed to 'question' and figure out what exactly happened? OR... should they cover it up with make-up, shut-up and pretend it never happened and just hope it never happens again?

b) Reverse the situation.

There are two scenarios for you. Now I'll filter all that crap down into one easy question for you...

Did an assault happen?

Spin info, spin.

Uhhhh sorry there Tucker JR. Hate to burst yer bubble but Tucker was "let free of his obligation to CNN " His producer seemed to agree with Jon Stewart after his visit to Crossfire and decided that there future together was not a match. You may find him obscurely working on that bleeding hearted liberal channel PBS (not joking)Don't worry though,hes gonna leave you the bowtie in your divorce.

ps....gonna answer the "stroke" filled question above?

Now the inanity is getting boring.

The Tucker/Stewart connection that edelio mentioned took place in October of last year. The video is here...

Stewart on Crossfire

quote:

---

posted by Info:
Your right pot this is fun Eric seems to be close to having a stroke, and I get to go Clintonesque.

---

Info the only thing "Clintonesque" about you is that the UFCW boys left a stain on your dress. Here's a cigar:

Now run along and don't come back.

P.S. Watch yourself. One end's really hot. We don't want you to burn y'self.

You're absolutely right bb. My jab at info was over the line and deliberately so. I broke the guidelines and for that I appologize.

That being said, info has had ample opportunity to be obnoxius and silly, and I took the liberty of giving him a trout smack.

It's now morning and we've all had a good night's sleep. It's now time for info to answer the quesions posed by bb.

Okay Kevin boy. You say:

There is great strength in having 27,000 people bargain together.

You proudly admit that There can be no strike or lockout.

You put a list a mile long of monetary concessions that you want from Loblaw. Last time you dropped your drawers, collectively, you and your pals got dick-all 'cept for several million in some flakey unregulated fund.

You always go backwards--even when you have the right to strike. What the hell makes you think that you will go forward when you can't strike. Have you honed your begging skills since last time?

Bullshit! Lots of bullshit.

What strength is there in numbers if there is no right to strike?

Hmmm.... Sumphim ain't right here.

Did I hear Kevin correctly ( Loblaws threatened to do the same at other conventional stores as they did in Strathroy at the OLRB ) So the board said you should open the contract early.

How unfucking believable.

By opening the contract early we can establish long term security beyond 2006

If you look closely you can actually see Kevins nose grow during this statement.

There's a question that seems to have been left out of the FAQ:

What happens if the company offers the union a big honking pile of cash for something that's not in the members' interest?

Answer?

I am sorry guys,,,I don't know if its the music or what,,,but goddammit I think Kevin is sincere this time about it being good for members. Despite the money, the prior RCSS deal, and the fact that Loblaws wants a "do-over" on it. I am sold.

I work at the warehouse, so forgive me for my ignorance, but whats the story with you people at the store level? Someone who posts here MUST have voted in favour of this for it to be 73% yes votes. Its ok . You are not alone. I once voted for the UFCW despite my apprehensions. Please tell us why? Not to poke fun. People make decisions because of fears of family survival,not neccesarily because of the facts. If you voted yes or know someone who did please relay this Info so we can help others from making the same rash decision.

A lot of dough went into that production.

The CCH books are a nice touch. It makes you think that Kevin is well read in law. The fact is that anyone with half a brain doesn't use bound copies anymore. They do their research online or on CD. You can search online or on CD in a fraction of the time it takes to thumb through the damned volumes.

My guess it that the books are either a rented backdrop or if they are real, they have never been used.

Like I said, a lot of dough went into making that bit of schmarmy drivel.

Oh, frigging great! The buggers want to create provincial bargaining.

Do any of you realize what that means? Majority vote carries the deal. If all Local 1000a stores reject and all others accept, tough shit for 1000a voters--you're outnumbered.

What's odd is that a Declaration of Solidarity had to be signed by three UFCW locals. What the f*&# is that about? Does that mean that there was no solidarity before?

In reality, the Declaration of Solidarity is nothing more than a prop developed to scare the members and promote Loblaws agenda.

Paragraph one: Do what Loblaws says or you will lose your job and the UFCW has no ability to fight Loblaw.

Paragraph two: They imply that the UFCW has a chance to beg contract improvements. How's that? They just opened the contract a little over a year ago and not only got nothing but some secret cash, but they gave away a whole load of shit.

Paragraph three: We have no power to force Loblaws to do anything because the deal is that we can't strike.

Paragraph four: No additional risk by opening the contract? What a load of rubbish! Loblaw wants to do something that they weren't able to do before. If the UFCW wasn't prepared to give that to them, then there would be no opening of the CA--period. Putting cat poop in a salad doesn't change the fact that they are about to feed you cat poop.

Paragraph five: More cat poop. Coordinated Master Bargaining isn't the same as a single Certification and single bargaining unit. Do you really think that Loblaw is going to agree to anything that will allow the UFCW to shut all its stores at once? Read the Provigo Partnering Agreement in this document. The UFCW agreed that not only would they not certify more than one store per cert, but that the expiry dates woudn't coincide. Loblaw didn't want more than one store struck at a time.

Paragraph six and seven:This is used as space filler. It's what they have already agreed to with Loblaws.

Paragraph eight: They say, "Our common objective is Master Bargaining in the Ontario retail sector. Where this is achievable and in the best interest of our members, and that towards this end, we pledge our fullest cooperation, trust and solidarity."

What the hell does, "Where this is...in the best interest of our members..." mean? Either it is in the best interest to have Master Bargaining in the Ontario retail sector or it isn't. The whole damned sentence if loaded with doubt that it is even achievable or even in the best interest of the members.

In reality, the UFCW has always pledged to do that shit. They've been after a master agreement in all provinces for the past 30 years. They have never achieved it. In fact the Provigo deal precludes that. It's been over 20 years since any UFCW has even come close to getting a Master Agreement.

Buried in that mess of words is this message: Loblaws wants to earn more money, and they need to open the Collective Agreement to legitimize what they want to do. The UFCW has essentially agreed to let them do it, and have agreed to promote the deal as a good one. If we sit up and bark, there's a chance that Loblaw will toss us a bone.

The big problem is that whenever Loblaws tosses the UFCW a bone, it's a chicken bone and the members are the ones who wind up choking.

If they create a provinicial bargaining framework then they can all bargain backwards much more efficiently. There will be no more need for multiple votes and no danger that one group might get in the way of "progress' (for the employer of course).

It's really quite perverse, the way that these guys dissemble. Their motives are so transparent yet they shamelessly make use of concepts that were once quite helpful to organized labour.

These three blind mice have had the ability to take Loblaw Companies on and strike them from one end of the province to the other, at the same time, for years. They haven't ever exercised that power because, as was stated to me by one of them very clearly, "If we strike Loblaws, Loblaws will pull our voluntary rec agreements. So we can't strike Loblaws."

What's the point of having a union that will never let you exercise the power of collective action?

These guys are IMHO a business services firm that calls itself a union because it needs to in order to ply its trade.

If ever there was a union that needs to have its status revoked this is it.