# Canada Post strike?



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

*.*

.


----------



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Will they settle at the last minute?
> 
> If they don't, how long will it last?


I think the real question is, will anyone care? or notice?

It made me realize that I don't rely on Canada Post as much as I used to. I send 99% of my correspondence via email, packages are usually shipped via courier, my bills come ePost, my invoices are PDF (and emailed) and payments are EMT (or a cheque that I pick up). Canada Post is not in the equation of my business operations and I know that I am not alone.

It's gotta be tough to strike when no one notices - so I say not long, a few days at the most


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

First I heard of it.

For reasons which I won't get into here, if offends my tender sensibilities every time I enter the post office to purchase stamps.

While we use Canada Post as little as possible (both personally and through the business), we still do mail out a few hundred CD's/DVD's every year. Have about 50 to burn right now, guess they may be late getting delivered.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

simon said:


> I think the real question is, will anyone care? or notice?


We will. Most of the trades and service people we use only take cheques, and so we rely pretty heavily on mail. Plus they mail us bills.

I suppose we could receive bills by fax, but the payment will be an issue.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Not really showing up in the MS media radar as yet. Will have to get some crucial payments out this week, then hope the dust has cleared by the end of June. Shaw et al will just have to wait if it comes down to that.

Link:
Strike being prepared, as union dismisses latest Canada Post offer | Post & Parcel



> *Strike being prepared, as union dismisses latest Canada Post offer*
> 
> Wednesday, May 18th, 2011 A postal strike could be little more than a week away in Canada, with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers yet to agree a new collective bargaining deal with Canada Post Corporation.
> 
> ...


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

MazterCBlazter said:


> I need Canada post to ship stuff. Other services cost much more. If a strike is unavoidable, maybe a good time to schedule a vacation?


Whenever possible I use CanadaPost as my shipper of choice. I may be affected - it just depends when/if the threatened strike actually occurs and what is moving in my world. All other correspondence, invoices, etc. are done electronically due to changes made to accommodate previous postal strikes......


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Sonal said:


> We will. Most of the trades and service people we use only take cheques, and so we rely pretty heavily on mail. Plus they mail us bills.
> 
> I suppose we could receive bills by fax, but the payment will be an issue.


Nah, just fax them a cheque (or cash!)

(Fax'em if they can't take a joke!)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I use Canada Post if I don't care when something arrives.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I honestly can't remember the last time I used snail-mail.

FedEx, UPS, etc. for physical stuff, email for everything else.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I use the Xpress post quite a lot, it is relatively cheap and reasonably fast.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Why is it no one is concerned about a Canada Post lock-out?

It is just as likely as a strike and may be preferred by management to show the Union in a bad light.

I was locked out on occasion when the Union had no intention of going on a general strike.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Legal Orders from the Landlord and Tenant board are also sent by mail. Originals are required to enforce eviction proceedings, so I'm not sure if there's going to be some way that we can pick these up or if we just have to wait.

Also, rent from paid directly by various agencies (ODSP, etc) is sent by mail and in some buildings that's a significant number of tenants. Not sure how they will handle that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Why is it no one is concerned about a Canada Post lock-out


If it ultimately reduces the power of the postal union, I'm all for it.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I use Canada Post if I don't care when something arrives.





Macfury said:


> If it ultimately reduces the power of the postal union, I'm all for it.


With no vested interest, to hell with everybodyelse, *right!*

So flows the milk human kindness for the rugged individualist. So much for we all should be free to make our own way.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

I agree with MacFury, and I rely on the post office less and less these days - my beefs with Canada post

- a few years ago, the union forced some homeowners to rebuild their front steps because they were a few millimeters too high, claiming it was a critical safety issue. Yet, in the winter, I see postal carriers walk across people's front lawns in three feet of snow instead of using the shoveled driveways
- their web site promises two to three day delivery to mail a letter from Ottawa to a small town in Nova Scotia, yet I rarely see it take less than eight days
- it took them years to make their online business center work on Intel Macs, even though I pointed out the actual bug in the code to them more than two years before they fixed it
- they advertise how easy it is to ship from your home - print online waybills, stick them to your package, and drop it in your neighbourhood mailbox. My neighbourhood mailbox is integrated into the "superbox" and only accepts letters, not packages
- some neighbourhoods get home delivery of mail, but my neighbourhood gets a superbox. Aren't I entitled to a discount then?
- I often get a card in the mailbox to go to the neighbourhood post office to pick up a package. The card says "Final Notice", even though I never received first or second notices.
- the package tracking on their web site is so out of date, the package often arrives before they even update the information on the web site


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

rgray said:


> All other correspondence, invoices, etc. are done electronically due to changes made to accommodate previous postal strikes......


I think the more they are not performing their function (be it via strike or are locked out) the more quickly they'll find they are becoming irrelevant. For most unions 'job security' is one of their main platforms, so striking would in the long run be counter productive.

I like to use Xpress post, because it's convenient, but once forced to make a change, the change usually stays made. For instance, although most of my transactions are paid or received via cheque, I'm pretty sure that if I made the effort to go to some form of EFT system, I wouldn't go back once the strike/lockout was over.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> With no vested interest, to hell with everybodyelse, *right!*
> 
> So flows the milk human kindness for the rugged individualist. So much for we all should be free to make our own way.


No. I have a vested interest in opening up all of the territory monopolized by Canada Post to the private sector (not the fake private sector as represented by a Crown Corporation). 

I am also appalled to see work that could be done by a St. Bernard performed by human letter carriers making $60,000 per year.



hayesk said:


> - I often get a card in the mailbox to go to the neighbourhood post office to pick up a package. The card says "Final Notice", even though I never received first or second notices.


I've watched them sometimes walk up to the house with the "you were not at home" notice already filled out, ready to stick it to the door. They'd rather not waste their time with that, since they can go home early if they finish off their route.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I have a theory that one factor in why online shopping has not taken off here they way it has in the US is that Canada Post's service is vastly inferior to USPS. 

In any case, and speaking in general (I haven't looked up specific issues with this Canada Post dispute) I would very sympathetic to a union if the union can show me where they are genuinely suffering vs other non-union working Canadians.

I don't consider a lack job security suffering... who has job security these days? Nor do I consider a pension... who has a pension? Salary? It depends... people should be fairly paid for the work they do, but seniority isn't necessarily a big factor, since some types of jobs benefit a lot more from experience than others. 

I don't have an ideological stance for or against unions--there have been, and may still be, times when a union is a very necessary construct to prevent harm and abuse of power. But by the same token, there are and there will be times when a union is not necessary and may be the source of harm and abuse of power.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> I don't have an ideological stance for or against unions--there have been, and may still be, times when a union is a very necessary construct to prevent harm and abuse of power. But by the same token, there are and there will be times when a union is not necessary and may be the source of harm and abuse of power.


I support the right of workers to organize, but also the right of employers to fire workers who strike. In the case of Canada Post, the terms they have negotiated are the result of dealing with a government who feels little pain in acquiescing to their demands--they capitulate time and again.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I use Canada Post if I don't care when something arrives.


The thing that makes the PO my choice is that stuff is delivered to my Box at their building in the rural village near where I live. I can go whenever it is convenient to ME and get the package(s). No waiting in for couriers. On this rural route they are always off schedule. My Mac help business depends on being able to go when a client calls. Also no having to explain how to get to my house (which violates my basic hermit lifestyle)to every new driver who invariably phone because Garmin et al can't seem to find me.

Also I find that people who are not experienced, frequent internet purchasers feel comfortable if I suggest the CandaPost COD service - they pay the post office when they pick up the package - all neat and tidy.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I don't know if they are still at it but friggin' UPS was trying to use NAFTA to break Canada Post's monopoly on letter mail. God help us if that ever happens.

I had a week last fall with untold hours on the phone, talking to CSRs around North America and the Philippines, trying to get a UPS delivery arranged. I've never met with such a hidebound example of stupid bureaucracy, worse than any dealings I've ever had with the government. These clods kept telling me, day after day, that a driver would be arriving at my house. I pleaded with them to consult a map, "I live on a small rural island, there WILL BE NO DRIVER!"

"No, no," they insisted, "We have you on our delivery schedule." Kept escalating the call, the higher-ups, while speaking better English, were equally as clueless and bureaucratic. "We'll have our customer specialist call you back." Never got the call. Call back and explain the whole ordeal all over again.

All in all, even with their low wages paid in the Philippines, I'm sure I used up at least 15 person hours of the their company's time trying to sort out a $10 parcel delivery and cost them quite a bit of money. When private sector bureaucracy gets bad, it gets really bad. Still UPS somehow made billions in profit last year.

All these private delivery services might work passably well in the cities, but outside of them, they are garbage.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why should Canada Post have a monopoly? BigDL tells me it is a private corporation.

All large organizations eventually become pathetic. I had a long running feud with Canada Post years ago when I lived in an apartment building. I needed to receive courier packages during the day so I would leave my part of the communal postbox open--it had only a letter slot available if locked. Canada Post refused to put mail in the box unless it was locked. I told them that they were perfectly happy to place mail in other unlocked boxes for both residences and businesses and I wanted the same courtesy offered to me. Their default position: if the box were left unlocked it might injure a postal worker who did not realize it was unlocked. 

I would come to the post office once a week to pick up my mail where they would attempt to charge me a mail holding fee and I would refuse to leave until they gave me my mail. We kept his up for the full year I lived in that building--never resolved.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I don't know if they are still at it but friggin' UPS was trying to use NAFTA to break Canada Post's monopoly on letter mail. God help us if that ever happens.
> 
> I had a week last fall with untold hours on the phone, talking to CSRs around North America and the Philippines, trying to get a UPS delivery arranged. I've never met with such a hidebound example of stupid bureaucracy, worse than any dealings I've ever had with the government. These clods kept telling me, day after day, that a driver would be arriving at my house. I pleaded with them to consult a map, "I live on a small rural island, there WILL BE NO DRIVER!"
> 
> ...


The obvious solution GA is to have your Island become a thriving Metropolis such as Manhattan Island. The guaranteed high volume business would assure an enterprising outfit as UPS the private incentive to provide the service you would desire even if you don't know that's what you desire. The other aspects of your desires, say for a peaceful life, might go to pooh but that's progress for ya'.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

Macfury said:


> No. I have a vested interest in opening up all of the territory monopolized by Canada Post to the private sector (not the fake private sector as represented by a Crown Corporation).


The private sector only wants to deliver in large cities. Canada Post already delivers items for UPS and FEDX that are out of town.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

*Some of the reasons they might strike*

Their demand to eliminate our paid sick leave plan under Article 20 rolls the collective agreement back to 1968.
 Their demand to eliminate the 7th week of vacation leave under Article 19 rolls the collective agreement back to 1980.
 Their demand to reduce Injury on Duty pay under Article 24 rolls the collective agreement back to 1976.
 Their demand to increase the age of early retirement without penalty for those with less than 30 years of service under
Article 42 rolls the collective agreement back to 1971.
 Not giving all employees a 30 minute paid meal period under Article 14 rolls the collective agreement back to 1980.
 Setting a starting wage of $17.50 per hour under Appendix A rolls the collective agreement back to 1999.
 The attack on pension indexing takes us back to wage and price controls imposed by the government in 1984.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

arminia said:


> The private sector only wants to deliver in large cities. Canada Post already delivers items for UPS and FEDX that are out of town.


Let them deliver in large cities then.



arminia said:


> Their demand to eliminate our paid sick leave plan under Article 20 rolls the collective agreement back to 1968.
>  Their demand to eliminate the 7th week of vacation leave under Article 19 rolls the collective agreement back to 1980.
>  Their demand to reduce Injury on Duty pay under Article 24 rolls the collective agreement back to 1976.
>  Their demand to increase the age of early retirement without penalty for those with less than 30 years of service under
> ...


OK, so what is your point? Let 'em roll it back! It seems fair to me for unskilled labour.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Let them deliver in large cities then.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so what is your point? Let 'em roll it back! It seems fair to me for unskilled labour.


You seem to often refer to unionized workers as unskilled labour reaping obscene rewards. I find it interesting and very often without merit. 

Did a unionized worker steal your lunch as a child? Perhaps one stood you up in your formative years. 

Remember mf, forgiveness is the key.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No. Some union labour is skilled--however most of Canada Post is not.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No. Some union labour is skilled--however most of Canada Post is not.


Could you provide us with a detailed breakdown of skilled versus unskilled workers at Canada Post? Such sweeping statements need to be verified, no?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The 15,000 letter carriers would be my first pick.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The 15,000 letter carriers would be my first pick.


Depends on your definition of skilled. Personally I would classify them as semi-skilled. 

If nothing else they need to read and organize, an ability I would question in most of the non unionized flyer and junk mail delivery people.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Depends on your definition of skilled. Personally I would classify them as semi-skilled.
> 
> If nothing else they need to read and organize, an ability I would question in most of the non unionized flyer and junk mail delivery people.


My definition of "skilled" would be that you could go to another workplace and claim that you had some specific ability. So a unionized carpenter would be skilled. There are few jobs that require no organizational ability--even fewer that require no reading.

Junk mail delivery people are given material with no addresses on the junk and, thus, there is no way to determine that the material was ever delivered correctly.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

My point is why should they give up what they have had for many years. Would you?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> Depends on your definition of skilled. Personally I would classify them as semi-skilled.
> 
> If nothing else they need to read and organize, an ability I would question in most of the non unionized flyer and junk mail delivery people.


OMG! Since when did the ability to read & organize qualify you as semi-skilled? If you didn't possess that out of high school, then it's time to go back for another 12 years.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

It probably won't last long. Your Conservative buddies will legislate them back to work.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

FeXL said:


> OMG! Since when did the ability to read & organize qualify you as semi-skilled? If you didn't possess that out of high school, then it's time to go back for another 12 years.


Did you miss the _'If nothing else'_ part?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

arminia said:


> My point is why should they give up what they have had for many years. Would you?


If I were unskilled I would cry bloody murder to keep my gold plated wages. However, I am paying their gold plated wages, so I would be happy to see them rolled back. Tradition is a very poor argument for hiring people at above-market rates.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

How are you paying their wages?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

arminia said:


> How are you paying their wages?


By purchasing regular delivery stamps-- a service which is a monopoly by government decree.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

So use UPS or FEDX.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

It's interesting that one, who has stated as to not having any inclination towards a service spend so much time and thought expressing views about said service and deriding those who provide this service.

Why would one who doesn't care, invest so much effort?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Why would one who doesn't care, invest so much effort?


Because it is in his nature to do so......


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Even though I have very little dealings with Canada Post on a day to day basis, this potential walk-out could really be bad timing. I'm expecting an important government certificate which, once received, has to be snail mailed back to another government department by a certain deadline, which BTW is fast approaching.

If they do walk, perhaps I can get an extension. We'll see.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

arminia said:


> My point is why should they give up what they have had for many years. Would you?


Happens to private sector employees... company changes the benefit packages, you're SOL.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

With his own sloped, arthritic shoulders.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

arminia said:


> So use UPS or FEDX.


Canada Post has a government-granted monopoly on lettermail. I will not spend $16 to mail a letter by courier because a monopoly has been granted to Canada Post.

Either way, those nutty union wages for letter carriers are going to take a hit.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

What are the issues that might lead to a strike?

Many people still rely on Canada Post for delivery of very important stuff, so it's a shame that there is so little public awareness of the issues.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

These are the issues. Will other "semi-skilled" workers take the place of semi-skilled workers on strike? Then let them.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

I work for a marketing firm attached to a mail house (we have staff on hand who pre-sort mail). Canada Post has been trying to put our kind out of business; one of our managers has a folder filled with newspaper clippings to this effect. I have little sympathy for CP workers.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Ahhhh all is revealed! The real interest is the hatred of workers organised for their welfare and protection and the busting of their Union.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

^ That directed to me?


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

Macfury said:


> These are the issues. Will other "semi-skilled" workers take the place of semi-skilled workers on strike? Then let them.


What are the issues?


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

chasMac said:


> I work for a marketing firm attached to a mail house (we have staff on hand who pre-sort mail). Canada Post has been trying to put our kind out of business; one of our managers has a folder filled with newspaper clippings to this effect. I have little sympathy for CP workers.


Are you saying that union members may vote to go on strike to put "your kind" out of business? That makes no sense to me. You'll hafta back that up with a better description of what you think is going on.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr T said:


> What are the issues?


There are other issues?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

Macfury said:


> There are other issues?


The scenario of possible hiring of scabs by Canada Post during a possible strike is a diversion from the topic at hand. 

There will be a strike if the union negotiations with management lead nowhere. There has been progress.The main issue seems to be management's attempt to force CUPW members to join the race to the bottom.

I just had a quick look at the CUPW website, and can report this much:

"Following [the CUPW] strike vote, CPC dropped several of the rollbacks they had proposed for current and future employees.

However, their offer continues to include several major rollbacks, such as the short term disability program.

It also fails to address many of the most important demands submitted by the Union, including:

Sufficient full-time regular staffing;

Safe working conditions and a healthy workload;

Reduction of compulsory overtime;

Decent wages, benefits and pensions for all employees including employees hired after the date of signing;

Protection from harassment by Manulife;

Expanded services and job creation;

Measures to address the adverse effects of the new technology and work methods. These adverse effects include multiple bundle delivery, inadequate rotation of duties, etc."



"It is now time for Canada Post Corporation to intensify negotiations and negotiate a collective agreement that meets the needs of all postal workers."


Source
CUPW - 2011-05-19 - Negotiations Continue: Differences Remain


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

chasMac said:


> ^ That directed to me?


I was composing my post and only saw your post after my reply was submitted.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Will there be a strike or not?


That is a hard answer for anybody but the negotiators to reply to.

If your post is an attempt to have the discussion focus on the matter of a possible strike/lock out, well I can see the circumstances pushing toward a labour dispute.

Well over 90% of collective agreements are settled without any stoppage of work. This particular case however seems to favour the position of the Employer over the position of the Union.

A right wing government is nearly installed in Ottawa. After the beginning of June and the Parliament is up and running we shall see the tipping of a hand involved in the bargaining process. With an ability, to have back to work legislation at the ready, bargaining will be getting to the end game I should think.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr T said:


> The scenario of possible hiring of scabs by Canada Post during a possible strike is a diversion from the topic at hand.


I don't support temporary replacement workers. I meant permanent replacement workers.

I looked at the rest of the list and some of it made me laugh. They want protection from new technology, do they? Maybe jobs polishing the computers?

Truly, if I were a "semi-skilled" employee making those kinds of wages in this economy, I would beg the union to keep it--and all of those "issues"--a secret instead of trumpeting it from coast to coast.



BigDL said:


> A right wing government is nearly installed in Ottawa. After the beginning of June and the Parliament is up and running we shall see the tipping of a hand involved in the bargaining process. With an ability, to have back to work legislation at the ready, bargaining will be getting to the end game I should think.


What about the orange "tsunami" that will win the hearts and minds of Canadians?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

You gotta love spin.

Addressing issues in a manner that are not at all representative of the reality of the situation.

Going on about your contrived things as if your imagined boogiemen are real.

Very sad really!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Ahhhh all is revealed! The real interest is the hatred of workers organised for their welfare and protection and the busting of their Union.


In order to pay them 'market rates' which is code for 'as low as we possibly can'. 

I'd love to see the quality of service if we stripped away the union and hired those willing to work for 'market rates'. Seems to me the turnover would be great and the constant hiring and training would cost CP a pretty penny. 

Also, the lower the wage, the less the accountability. I certainly wouldn't want the guy delivering flyers to be handling the mail. Ugh, this bag's too heavy, time to drop it in the ravine.

It's easy to sit back in your ideological armchair gnashing your teeth saying these peons earn too much! These same peons who, through their very average salaries contribute greatly to the tax base and their local economies. These peons who own houses and cars and contribute to their communities. These peons who aren't a strain on the welfare system because of the lack of a living wage.

Destroy the unions and keep 'em poor! Is that your vision of the future?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> In order to pay them 'market rates' which is code for 'as low as we possibly can'.
> 
> I'd love to see the quality of service if we stripped away the union and hired those willing to work for 'market rates'. Seems to me the turnover would be great and the constant hiring and training would cost CP a pretty penny.
> 
> ...


No. Unskilled labour should receive wages commensurate with their lack of skill. Paying people too much money so some of it can be taxed away is a ludicrous model for prosperity. Why not triple everyone's wages so we will have more tax money to enrich the country! Goody!!!

The excess wages represent a non-productive use of capital. 

Are you suggesting they would not contribute to their communities if they received market wages? Would they be on welfare if they weren't overpaid? Would they throw their bags in the ravine if they weren't receiving $65,000 a year to deliver letters? 

Essentially, you're suggesting these people have morals that are purchased by gold-plated wages. Any less and they become welfare bums or throw their mailbags in the ravine.


----------



## WCraig (Jul 28, 2004)

Dr T said:


> ...It also fails to address many of the most important demands submitted by the Union, including:
> 
> Sufficient full-time regular staffing;
> 
> ...


Honest, I tried to stay out of this.

I worked with a letter carrier for a while. She was normally done her route in about 5 hours but, of course, was always paid for a full shift. Took a little bit longer in bad weather or the pre-Christmas rush but still EASILY achievable in less than the allotted time. When she wanted a long weekend, she'd go in and collect and sort her mail; and leave. Deliver the mail the next workday. She said that lots of the letter carriers NEVER worked Fridays. 

I believe the Canada Post union jobs are so heavily feather-bedded and overpaid, it is obscene. Any rollback, in my view, is a positive step. Everybody else in the working world is doing more with less these days. 

Craig


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

WCraig said:


> When she wanted a long weekend, she'd go in and collect and sort her mail; and leave. Deliver the mail the next workday. She said that lots of the letter carriers NEVER worked Fridays.


Funny, but I've wondered why there are days when literally nothing--including junk mail, arrives. That may explain it.

I'm still surprised to see the number of letters I receive that have been placed in a neighbour's slot, or delivered to the right address on the wrong street. I guess the letter carriers are making mistakes because they're too depressed about the way their skills are perceived.

It's funny, the reason mail carriers used to receive routine bonuses at Christmas from the people on their route was because they were considered public servants doing a job that offered considerable security in exchange for a lower wage. The customers are now the wage slaves, working like stink to support the gold-plated wage and benefit packages of the "public servants."


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The customers are now the wage slaves, working like stink to support the gold-plated wage and benefit packages of the "public servants."


That's because they've all been brainwashed to believe that unions are bad, lower wages are good.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

WCraig said:


> Everybody else in the working world is doing more with less these days.
> 
> Craig


And are you ok with this?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Are you suggesting they would not contribute to their communities if they received market wages?


Financially no, they wouldn't it your world because they would be poor. Also, poverty does strange things to the psyche... it generally doesn't promote hope or happiness and all that goes with it. But you probably don't insert this into your equation which seems to be that you are unhappy about the price you pay for a stamp so you want the union dismantled.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> That's because they've all been brainwashed to believe that unions are bad, lower wages are good.


No, they believe that they should not support the gold-plated wages and benefits of public servants doing unskilled work.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> In order to pay them 'market rates' which is code for 'as low as we possibly can'.
> 
> I'd love to see the quality of service if we stripped away the union and hired those willing to work for 'market rates'. Seems to me the turnover would be great and the constant hiring and training would cost CP a pretty penny.
> 
> ...


+1

Too bad there is no longer the "like link" function to reviews posts presently.

What I don't like? Anecdotal information expressed as some ultimate truth.

Working hard to get your work done sooner rather than later does not fit into "they're lazy myth" so it must be "they're featherbedding myth."

Let's not have all the facts, let's just have the anecdote to fit our tale."

A truth expressed to me and instilled into me by father "a fair day's work for a fair day's labour and the sooner you get it done, the sooner you get on to the next big thing."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Financially no, they wouldn't it your world because they would be poor. Also, poverty does strange things to the psyche... it generally doesn't promote hope or happiness and all that goes with it. But you probably don't insert this into your equation which seems to be that you are unhappy about the price you pay for a stamp so you want the union dismantled.


It's either/or is it? Either they make huge wages or they're poor. How about they make what other people in the private sector make--that seems fair. I don't make it a point to subsidize the happiness of others at my own expense. 

Have a union by all means, however I want the management to reject the union's demands. I believe that some unions need to be preserved like museum exhibits so future generations can see what they looked like.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No, they believe that they should not support the gold-plated wages and benefits of public servants doing unskilled work.


You think? I think the erosion of one equals the erosion of another. As the 'wage slaves' are cheering the diminishing of public sector unions, their own conditions are deteriorating in lock step. They literally are becoming people who are happy to be making less.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> A truth expressed to me and instilled into me by father "a fair day's work for a fair day's labour and the sooner you get it done, the sooner you get on to the next big thing."


If they can leave after five hours, then they don't have enough work to do. Let them collect five hours of wages then, and get onto "the next big thing."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> You think? I think the erosion of one equals the erosion of another. As the 'wage slaves' are cheering the diminishing of public sector unions there own conditions are deteriorating in lock step. They literally are becoming people who are happy to be making less.


Interesting mythology. Most people in the real world have, for years, seen their taxes erode any increase in wages and benefits--the same taxes that go to provide the rich wages and benefits of the public sector. And here, the people didn't realize all along they were enriching themselves. Why your entire idea that these fattened public servants enrich the community at large sounds suspiciously to me like--GASP!--trickle down economics.

But really, all I need to do is cheer on the wage grabs of the public sector unions to enrich myself! I love it when a plan comes together, eh mrjimmy?


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

[QUOTEWhen she wanted a long weekend, she'd go in and collect and sort her mail; and leave. Deliver the mail the next workday. She said that lots of the letter carriers NEVER worked Fridays. 
[/QUOTE]

She was either pulling your leg or you're a liar. Delaying the mail is a firing offence.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Interesting mythology. Most people in the real world have, for years, seen their taxes erode any increase in wages and benefits--the same taxes that go to provide the rich wages and benefits of the public sector. And here, the people didn't realize all along they were enriching themselves. Why your entire idea that these fattened public servants enrich the community at large sounds suspiciously to me like--GASP!--trickle down economics.
> 
> But really, all I need to do is cheer on the wage grabs of the public sector unions to enrich myself! I love it when a plan comes together, eh mrjimmy?


You miss my point completely. Remove the 'public sector unions' and my point still remains. Unions are being vilified and the people who would probably benefit the most from belonging to one are cheering their demise. I find it amazing to watch. Hopefully by the time they awake from their stupor it isn't too late.

I tire of this pointless back and forth so I must move on.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

I find it funny that most people want to pull people down to their level instead of aspiring to something higher.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

arminia said:


> I find it funny that most people want to pull people down to their level instead of aspiring to something higher.


A union member is something higher? I should aspire to double the wages of all unskilled labour?

Truth be told, the only thing holding me back in many cases are the various levels of government. The real world I can deal with.

I know a number of people who work for various unions. Funny thing. They shop for the best deals and get quotes for work done on their cars and houses. They never choose the highest quote or pay the highest price for consumer goods--even though spreading their wealth around would certainly help everyone else to aspire to their level of income and spread the happiness. 

At negotiating time, they sound a lot like you and BigDL.

I don't mind avoiding the products of union companies when I can buy elsewhere, but in the public sector I have no choice about many of the services that have been monopolized by law. I find these situations particularly galling and that's why I focus on them.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I'm surprised that everyone is focusing on the letter carriers. I guess it is because they're the most visible to the general public.

There's all sorts of different divisions within CUPW - lettercarriers, workers at the mail processing plants, urban workers, rural workers.

I worked for a few months as a worker at the main mail processing plant in Calgary. What a horrible, horrible place to work. I have a really good idea why the term 'going postal' was invented.

The pay was good, and the benefits were good. Nothing else about it was good. The relationship between supervisors and workers is so poisoned that a union was necessary to prevent abuses by management, but then the union would flex its muscle and there were always people who had to take advantage of things. For instance, you're allowed time to wash up at the end of your shift. So everyone leaves for the change rooms the moment your 'wash up' time arrives, and then sits around waiting for the time punch clock to tick over to official 'quitting time'. However during your shift you are allocated only so many minutes for bathroom breaks. And you ARE timed. If you take too long, your pay is docked.

It's a weird place. Very confrontational. No sense of 'teamwork' or 'working toward a common goal'. 

There are also things like 'mandatory overtime'. Sure, you get paid overtime, but it's not your choice whether to stay or not.

It's a poisonous place to work. But you put up with it because the pay is good. 

Fortunately I got released while I still under probation - best thing that ever happened to me, because the rate of pay was about double what I'd been making previously, and I probably would have tolerated the working conditions just for the money. But the money has to be good, because otherwise no one qualified would want do the work. You do have to be 'bondable' to handle the mail, which means no criminal record, so it's not just like you can hire some guy off the street. They also have tests for sorting ability - if you don't meet their standards, you don't get hired on a permanent basis. But once you're in, you're in... the union has seen to it that it's almost impossible to fire anyone for 'cause'. 

(I got released on probation because I had a supervisor tell me to move a sack of mail that weighed at least 100 lbs two feet to the left, and I looked at him (6'2" and 200 lbs) and said "You're kidding, right?" I weighed about 105 lbs at the time. I was released due to 'insubordination'. Union didn't help because I was still on probation. Keep your nose clean for 6 months is the key. I'd been there 5 months, 3 weeks.)

But I'm talking about working in the mail processing plant. I've never worked as a letter carrier, but I'm sure that job has it's own issues too.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Each job has its challenges. However, if the job is so heinous, I advise the workers to leave and have their replacements hired at market rates.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

Do the UPS and FEDX guys work at market rates or are they overpaid as well?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> If they can leave after five hours, then they don't have enough work to do. Let them collect five hours of wages then, and get onto "the next big thing."


Shouldn't the management of a company be the arbiter of what constitute "a fair day's work" with due regard to agreed principles rather than some random guy with only one thing, "an opinion" and nothing else, on the internet?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Shouldn't the management of a company be the arbiter of what constitute "a fair day's work" with due regard to agreed principles rather than some random guy with only one thing, "an opinion" and nothing else, on the internet?


The management of a real company--not one with the heft of government behind it in providing easy settlements.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> A union member is something higher? I should aspire to double the wages of all unskilled labour?
> 
> Truth be told, the only thing holding me back in many cases are the various levels of government. The real world I can deal with.
> 
> ...


Many Union members support Union made goods and services provided by Union member and look for the Union "bug." If forced many Union members will buy non-Union goods and services but prefer to buy at a Union shop.

With your and my anecdotes so what does that prove anyway?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> I'm surprised that everyone is focusing on the letter carriers. I guess it is because they're the most visible to the general public.
> 
> There's all sorts of different divisions within CUPW - lettercarriers, workers at the mail processing plants, urban workers, rural workers.
> 
> ...


I worked for the PWGSC Critic (MP) a long time ago (when Canada Post was still under that portfolio and not Transport as it is now) and so I knew the issues of Canada Post and the Union very well. Among those who knew the issues it was a common adage that "they are a management and union that deserve each other". Both being extremely combative and only looking out for themselves with no thought to the "greater good" that they served i.e. the Canadian people.

Canada Post is a f**ked up organization anyway you look at it and neither management, the workers or the union are innocent... they are all complicit in the adversarial relationship that exists.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

screature said:


> "they are a management and union that deserve each other"


That pretty much sums it up!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Many Union members support Union made goods and services provided by Union member and look for the Union "bug." If forced many Union members will buy non-Union goods and services but prefer to buy at a Union shop.
> 
> With your and my anecdotes so what does that prove anyway?


Ha! Look at all the Asian cars in the parking lot at Ford and GM!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Ha! Look at all the Asian cars in the parking lot at Ford and GM!


What the trade in's? 

I live in New Brunswick, Bricklin, was the last auto manufacturing company here. It was non Union. We did have Volvo's assembled in Nova Scotia they were Unionised but Volvo pulled out of Halifax in the 80's


----------



## tilt (Mar 3, 2005)

simon said:


> I think the real question is, will anyone care? or notice?


I do and I shall notice. I receive everything by post; plus I am leaving the country for a month next week and I need to be able to tell them not to deliver my mail for that month. If they are on strike I shall not be able to tell them and then I shall be receiving mail when i should not.



Macfury said:


> I've watched them sometimes walk up to the house with the "you were not at home" notice already filled out, ready to stick it to the door. They'd rather not waste their time with that, since they can go home early if they finish off their route.


That happened to me last week - expecting a replacement credit card. I was outside from 11:15 to 12:15. Nothing. Then I went back inside, and went out at 2 p.m. and saw the "You were out" notice, timestamped for 11:30 a.m. - the bastards!

Cheers


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

These are problems across the entire health care system. I experienced the same thing at a completely unionized facility in Toronto.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I refuse to use UPS, but have good luck with FedEX, particularly FedEx Ground for packages that aren't urgent.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I usually use the bus. They'll deliver in most larger centres, and if it's going to a business, the 'to the door' bit is no extra charge.

(The bus is absolutely the best way to send things to small places. The locals don't think anything of getting a call to go pick up a parcel at the bus depot, the the service is usually way quicker than via traditional courier. Just remember to put a phone number on the parcel.)


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

After talking with a friend who works at the post office, she said that USPS is holding things back at the border for customs now. This is crappy news for a lot of people including me. I've been waiting early two weeks for my power inverter board. My monitor is getting dimmer along with my hopes of ever getting my Cinema display having a brighter happier future.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I've been thinking about whether I support back-to-work legislation for the deservedly locked-out workers. I reluctantly support it for as long as Canada Post has an unfair government-decreed monopoly on delivering letter mail. Once this anachronism is erased, it will no longer be an (artificially established) essential service and it should be hands off for the government.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Personally, I think it was a bad move on management's part of lock out the workers... slow mail is more acceptable than no mail. 

If the public is fairly happy with mail service that only operates 3 days a week--which was just fine as far as I'm concerned--then that's proof that there is no need to have as much full-time staff at Canada Post. 

Honestly, I'm among the few people I know personally who have been directly affected by the strike, and it could have kept going on a rotating or part-time basis for a lot longer without bothering me at all. But a total stop? That actually changes things.

As a business model, however, I think Canada Post needs to focus on package delivery. USPS is pretty good for packages, and online shopping in the US far outstrips similar service in Canada. That's a market that can grow for them if they can offer good service. Letter delivery is becoming less relevant.


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2011)

They've lost my business with a move like this -- or at least the last of it I was giving them. The > $100 package of perishable goods I ordered are no doubt long spoiled ... the Xpress post "guaranteed delivery" time I paid for with it (for a very good reason, the goods were perishable)? Gone up in smoke as well ... I'm sure that I won't be getting a refund on that either even though they will miss their guaranteed delivery date by a long shot and I'm out the over $100 for the perishable goods that are spoiled by now. The cheque's that are in the mail? The other packages I was waiting on delivery of with expensive electronics? Not holding my breath on when I'll be getting any of them either. After this whole fiasco it's going to take them ages to dig out of the mess they have caused here.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

the rotating strikes was a great policy by the union since it was just a minor inconvenience to the public, but was hurting Canada Post's bottom line.

the lock out by Canada Post was heavy handed, and will most likely cost their business long term.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Personally, I think it was a bad move on management's part of lock out the workers... slow mail is more acceptable than no mail.


Perhaps it will prove to be a bad decision in the long run--but losing $100s of millions in revenue over rotating strikes is also rough. Only the final math will determine which choice was correct. I suspect management forced the lockout to push for a legislated arbitrated settlement--one which is unlikely to favour CUPW.



Sonal said:


> If the public is fairly happy with mail service that only operates 3 days a week--which was just fine as far as I'm concerned--then that's proof that there is no need to have as much full-time staff at Canada Post.


I was happy with mail service that used to operate on Saturday. When I was a baby, apparently they delivered twice a day, eliminating the need for courier service--you could drop the letter in the mail that morning and it might be delivered to the same city by afternoon or the next morning. Why not Tuesdays and Thursdays one week and odd days the next and fire half the workforce?




Sonal said:


> As a business model, however, I think Canada Post needs to focus on package delivery. USPS is pretty good for packages, and online shopping in the US far outstrips similar service in Canada. That's a market that can grow for them if they can offer good service. Letter delivery is becoming less relevant.


Why should it concentrate on anything the private sector can provide? The point initially was to provide a service that would not otherwise exist--a la CBC. In my opinion, they should have their monopoly taken away, and should limit their own delivery to every other day, concentrating on letter mail on a cost-recovery basis with a much smaller workforce.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> the rotating strikes was a great policy by the union since it was just a minor inconvenience to the public, but was hurting Canada Post's bottom line.


It was a policy that showed Canadians just how irrelevant their daily deliveries were--and thus, the postal workers themselves. 

Their great policy resulted in a lock-out, so not such a great strategy.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Perhaps it will prove to be a bad decision in the long run--but losing $100s of millions in revenue over rotating strikes is also rough. Only the final math will determine which choice was correct. I suspect management forced the lockout to push for a legislated arbitrated settlement--one which is unlikely to favour CUPW.


There's also the issue of managing public perceptions. Up until the lockout, it was CUPW that were a bunch of whiners. Now it's management that are a bunch of tools. 



Macfury said:


> Why should it concentrate on anything the private sector can provide? The point initially was to provide a service that would not otherwise exist--a la CBC. In my opinion, they should have their monopoly taken away, and should limit their own delivery to every other day, concentrating on letter mail on a cost-recovery basis with a much smaller workforce.


Because having good and inexpensive package delivery makes it far easier for online businesses to successfully operate in Canada. USPS does a superior job to Canada Post in this regard. I believe that Canada Post could offset some of its necessary letter-mail costs, reuse their existing infrastructure, and provide a service that helps businesses to grow in Canada.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Why should it concentrate on anything the private sector can provide? The point initially was to provide a service that would not otherwise exist--a la CBC. In my opinion, they should have their monopoly taken away, and should limit their own delivery to every other day, concentrating on letter mail on a cost-recovery basis with a much smaller workforce.


You're missing the factor of "economy of scale" that comes with a monopoly. 

A letter can be sent coast to coast for less than a dollar.

Try doing that with a courier service.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> It was a policy that showed Canadians just how irrelevant their daily deliveries were--and thus, the postal workers themselves.
> 
> Their great policy resulted in a lock-out, so not such a great strategy.


I don't think my mail is "irrelevant". I actually use Canada Post all the time since it's less expensive than the other options (most of time....there are exceptions).

And personally i blame me not getting my mail on the Canada Post *corporation*, not the workers. The workers were still delivering my mail until they got locked out.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MLeh said:


> You're missing the factor of "economy of scale" that comes with a monopoly.
> 
> A letter can be sent coast to coast for less than a dollar.
> 
> Try doing that with a courier service.


Similarly, there is the issue of far-flung and remote communities; while I'm sure the private sector could extract a profit from delivery services to the large urban centres, I doubt they'd find the prospects of delivering to Tuktoyaktuk as attractive.

Now, one could make the argument that the remote communities of Canada aren't really part of the fabric of the nation, and cutting off their mail service in the interest of cutting government spending is just financially prudent. But I'm not sure I agree. It seems to me that a country is more than just an exercise in economic optimization, and that less government isn't always automatically better.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MLeh said:


> You're missing the factor of "economy of scale" that comes with a monopoly.
> 
> A letter can be sent coast to coast for less than a dollar.
> 
> Try doing that with a courier service.


Maybe a private courier can't do it, but maybe it can. How can we know for sure when private companies must charge at least 3x the Canada Post rate for a 50g letter? Canada Post Corporation Act -- see 15.1.e

I suspect some courier companies could be very competitive with Canada Post for intra-urban lettermail, and probably also compete on most city-to-city mail. 

However, in the absence of a Canada Post mandate to serve the whole country, it seems likely that remote communities would suffer. Currently you can send a letter from Iqaluit to Tuktoyaktuk for under a dollar, but how much does it really cost to provide that service? How much would the consumer pay in the absence of a monopoly?

Edit: written before seeing the previous post (bryanc), all resemblances purely coincidental.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Similarly, there is the issue of far-flung and remote communities; while I'm sure the private sector could extract a profit from delivery services to the large urban centres, I doubt they'd find the prospects of delivering to Tuktoyaktuk as attractive.
> 
> Now, one could make the argument that the remote communities of Canada aren't really part of the fabric of the nation, and cutting off their mail service in the interest of cutting government spending is just financially prudent. But I'm not sure I agree. It seems to me that a country is more than just an exercise in economic optimization, and that less government isn't always automatically better.


Why not let Canada Post simply do its thing and compete in an open marketplace--not one in which competitors are forced to charge more by law, as iMatt points out. I know some of my utility bills are hand delivered by the utility because it's simply cheaper to hire someone to walk down the streets and do it.

If Canada Post's niche winds up being provision of cross Canada letter mail at a standard price, then let it do just that one thing, perhaps doing it every other day instead of daily to keep the price down.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Why not let Canada Post simply do its thing and compete in an open marketplace


The point is that because Canada Post is not being run in order to make a profit, it can use the money made delivering mail in easy-to-serve urban areas in order to subsidize the service in remote areas. If it were simply an 'open market' any remotely competent management would drop the remote areas as 'not profitable' and focus on the urban centres.

While I agree that the free market should be allowed to function whenever possible, there are many examples where it does not work well.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> The point is that because Canada Post is not being run in order to make a profit...


First, Canada Post is a for-profit venture.



bryanc said:


> ...it can use the money made delivering mail in easy-to-serve urban areas in order to subsidize the service in remote areas. If it were simply an 'open market' any remotely competent management would drop the remote areas as 'not profitable' and focus on the urban centres.


What would be wrong with that? Canada Post could continue to serve the rest of the country as a government service, much leaner and meaner.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> First, Canada Post is a for-profit venture.


Good point. They used to be purely public, and not-for-profit (and, IMHO, the service was far better then), but they were pseudo-priviatized into a Crown Corporation back during the first wave of neo-conservativism in the '80s. But since they're required by their charter to provide postal service to all Canadians, the profit-motivation to drop rural service is not available.



> What would be wrong with that? Canada Post could continue to serve the rest of the country as a government service, much leaner and meaner.


They wouldn't be able to, because, being saddled with the requirement of serving (unprofitable) remote areas, they wouldn't be competitive in urban areas. The money has to come from somewhere.


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2011)

I'm in a very urban area and I get terrible service from Canada Post. We have "community mailboxes" meaning we don't get to the door delivery (meanwhile almost everyone I know that's very rural does) ... ok fine, whatever. BUT ... when I get any packages that require a signature ... they are supposed to come to my door to get the signature and deliver it. In over 3 years at this address it has not happened one single time. They simply drop a card into my mailbox telling me that it will be available for pickup the next day at a specific location. For some reason it's not always the same location. One is about 2.5km away, the other is about 8km away. At that point I'm asking myself why exactly I am having to pay the same for this level of (dis) service that others get to their door. Not only that but my "priority" deliveries, because of this, are always at least a full day late -- a guarantee that they will not stand behind because ... the mail carrier dropped a card in my box on the day I was supposed to get the package. I've even gone so far as to take pictures of the postal worker putting the card into my box to prove to them that they in fact never even attempt to deliver (the cards always say that I was not available).

P.S. Yes, I'm using this thread to vent about Canada Post ... at this point I feel pretty strongly about the whole situation and I would honestly at this point use anyone else were they available and ask Canada Post to exclude me from their "route" .. I'm really tired of getting not only crappy service but mailboxes full of spam -- that I don't want ANY of and I have no way to stop getting. That, in itself, is a royal scam if ever there was one.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Good point. They used to be purely public, and not-for-profit (and, IMHO, the service was far better then), but they were pseudo-priviatized into a Crown Corporation back during the first wave of neo-conservativism in the '80s. But since they're required by their charter to provide postal service to all Canadians, the profit-motivation to drop rural service is not available.


Before, they would simply come begging to the feds to make up their gigantic losses in a block payment. Six of one...



bryanc said:


> They wouldn't be able to, because, being saddled with the requirement of serving (unprofitable) remote areas, they wouldn't be competitive in urban areas. The money has to come from somewhere.


Why should they be delivering in urban areas if someone else will do it cheaper? Let them simply make a promise to deliver letter mail for X cents per letter, anywhere in Canada and let people decide whether or not to use the service.



mguertin said:


> I'm in a very urban area and I get terrible service from Canada Post. We have "community mailboxes" meaning we don't get to the door delivery...


The notion that Canada Post provides equal service across the country is mythical. Those monster community postboxes prove it. New customers with worse delivery service subsidize old ones and rempte areas.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

mguertin said:


> not only crappy service but mailboxes full of spam -- that I don't want ANY of and I have no way to stop getting. That, in itself, is a royal scam if ever there was one.


We have the same area mailboxes and all we did to *stop* all spam mail was to attach a note to the front edge of our box (visible once the main door is opened) stating "NO UNADDRESSED MAIL PLEASE".
Bingo, no more spam snail mail.


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2011)

jamesB said:


> We have the same area mailboxes and all we did to *stop* all spam mail was to attach a note to the front edge of our box (visible once the main door is opened) stating "NO UNADDRESSED MAIL PLEASE".
> Bingo, no more spam snail mail.


Doesn't work here. Have even called and talked to higher ups about it and they said "It's part of our business model and you are not able to opt-out of these deliveries, companies pay good money to get these to you."


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Maybe having a PO Box is different but all we have to do is give the local Post master a note requesting no junk mail and Bingo zero un-addressed mail. Sadly does not work on the crap our MP sends us on a monthly basis.

OTH Stateside there is no cure.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Maybe having a PO Box is different but all we have to do is give the local Post master a note requesting no junk mail and Bingo zero un-addressed mail. Sadly does not work on the crap our MP sends us on a monthly basis.


Not here.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

How does the postal worker access the community mailbox? Through the back or through the front? And is it a single door, or do they have to open each individual door?

Depending on the design, they simply may not see a sign posted on the front of the mailbox. You might need to stick something on the inside of the box for them to see it.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Maybe having a PO Box is different but all we have to do is give the local Post master a note requesting no junk mail and Bingo zero un-addressed mail. Sadly does not work on the crap our MP sends us on a monthly basis.
> 
> OTH Stateside there is no cure.





Macfury said:


> Not here.


May not have worded that clearly. I meant with a regular PO Box we could request no Ad Mail. Perhaps because we are rural and our Post Office is run by an independent contractor they have more leeway?

Interestingly even though all they can do is sit on their hands and twiddle their thumbs, CP has to pay them and they have to be on the job.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

mguertin said:


> Doesn't work here. Have even called and talked to higher ups about it and they said "It's part of our business model and you are not able to opt-out of these deliveries, companies pay good money to get these to you."


That's not what their website says:

Canada Post ? How Do I Stop Delivery Of Admail Items?


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2011)

Sonal said:


> That's not what their website says:
> 
> Canada Post ? How Do I Stop Delivery Of Admail Items?


Well if they ever go back to work I will try that again. In the past I put it right inside the front of my mailbox (they open the whole front to get at our mailboxes) and it was impossible to miss. Also when I phoned I was told outright that they wouldn't do that ... maybe things have changed (I called last year).

I have a feeling that the people who deliver to my mailbox just don't give a crap ... they don't bother to try and deliver the packages they are supposed to bring to my door either so ignoring a note in the mail box wouldn't be a big stretch for them. I actually asked one of them at one time why they didn't deliver the packages to be signed for to the door and I was told that it "wasn't their problem" because we had community mailboxes and that if I wanted it I had to wait the extra day and pick it up myself. The people I spoke to on the phone said that they most certainly were supposed to be delivering that stuff (which is why I took the photo at one point of them actually putting the card in my box while I was standing right beside them). That day they told me that the package wasn't even on the truck so they couldn't give it to me even though I was standing there trying to meet them to collect it. Maybe you all have nicer people delivering in your areas ... the ones delivering here have attitudes big time (or at least the few that I've spoken with).


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Strange, but we are still getting mail delivered here in St.John's. Seems like mail is being delivered all over NL. We are being told that what happened is that the info about the rotating strikes, and then the lockout, were mailed to all workers in NL ........... and that mail was frozen in TO. So, it's business as usual for all internal mail (within the province) here in NL. 'Tis one of the advantages of living so far east ....... and in a province that some at Canada Post thinks is part of The Netherlands. I am forever getting the mail for a Dr. Mark Glossman who lives in Saba, which is a Caribbean island and the smallest special municipality of the Netherlands. St. Johns is the smallest settlement on Saba and is located between The Bottom and Windwardside.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread.

First of all, courier companies do not compete with the Postal Service. Couriers offer premium services which the post office does not offer and if they do, then it's not 57¢. Couriers got into the time definitive business offering overnight service. You can't do that for 57¢. Courier services do not deliver ads and the bulk of their business is _business_.

Rural mail delivery is already being done by independent contractors. All one has to do is get off the 401 and you'd see contractors in their own cars with a little Postal Service roof sign driving on the gravel shoulders of our fair province dropping the mail into roadside mailboxes.

You're really fooling yourself if you believe there's a sealskin clad postie wearing snowshoes delivering mail up in Toktoyaktuk... igloo to igloo. I'll bet dollars to donuts that it's also contracted out just like UPS, FedEx and Purolator contract out in such remote places. One local enterprising company probably handles all four services plus other heavy distribution of goods.

The Postal Service as it is is a joke. When I lived in Toronto it wasn't uncommon for me to experience exactly the same scenario as described by mguertin.

I'd be home and the door bell would ring, I'd answer it in less than 30 seconds only to see a postie climb back into his truck with nothing in his hands and drive away. 

Now in order for him to accomplish this Olympic feat, he must have parked, filled out the parcel form, left the parcel in the truck, walked to my front door, placed the form into my mailbox, rang the bell and hightail it back to his running truck.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Our mailman is so good that he calls around back when he hears our dogs barking at him in the backyard, but does not get a response when he rings the doorbell. He knows that I am most likely either a)listening to my iPod Nano while gardening or b)dead. When he whistles out to the dogs and they all come running, that catches my attention. He has dog treats for all the dogs on his route. He is great. I have invited him in for some tea when he manages to deliver mail during a typical St.John's blizzard. He is not supposed to come inside of the houses, but neither is he supposed to be delivering the mail when the drifts are waist high. 

Now, I have had good and great letter carriers ............ but don't get me started on the inside workers. I have had some really bad experiences with some of them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> Now in order for him to accomplish this Olympic feat, he must have parked, filled out the parcel form, left the parcel in the truck, walked to my front door, placed the form into my mailbox, rang the bell and hightail it back to his running truck.


I've watched them fill out the forms--and they have the package in the truck! Easier to fill out the form without knocking. I've waited for the form to come through the door, then told them to bring me the package NOW!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I've watched them fill out the forms--and they have the package in the truck! Easier to fill out the form without knocking. I've waited for the form to come through the door, then told them to bring me the package NOW!


They definitely deserve a fat raise and bigger pensions for such extraordinary service.

They're threatening to ignore the back-to-work legislation...should be interesting.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> They're threatening to ignore the back-to-work legislation...should be interesting.


I saw a bunch of out-of-shape sad sacks on Lakeshore Boulevard on the weekend carrying strike signs that said: "We want to deliver your mail, but they won't let us!"

I guess they don't want to deliver it that much, though.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I saw a bunch of out-of-shape sad sacks on Lakeshore Boulevard on the weekend carrying strike signs that said: "We want to deliver your mail, but they won't let us!"
> 
> I guess they don't want to deliver it that much, though.


They locked them out because there isn't any mail to deliver except for what's backlogged...like the government document I'm waiting for. Everyone else stopped using the service the minute they started their rotating strikes.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Hearing the news of the introduction of back to work legislation reminded me of the sage words of that great Canadian philosopher perhaps I'm paraphrasing here but wasn't it Danny Aykroyd who said: 

"LISA! You ignorant slut!"


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Hearing the news of the introduction of back to work legislation reminded me of the sage words of that great Canadian philosopher perhaps I'm paraphrasing here but wasn't it Danny Aykroyd who said:
> 
> "LISA! You ignorant slut!"


Don't worry. Just because they're legislating them back to work doesn't mean the union wont take a huge hit.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Don't worry. Just because they're legislating them back to work doesn't mean the union wont take a huge hit.


If I were a Conservative MP I should start worrying about my postage free mailings ever getting to my constituents. Then again that may be the least of these MP's worries. 

Many people have a more personal relationship, with their letter carrier, than they ever had/have with their MP.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Many people have a more personal relationship, with their letter carrier, than they ever had/have with their MP.


I get a different carrier every couple of months.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> If I were a Conservative MP I should start worrying about my postage free mailings ever getting to my constituents.
> .


Failing to deliver the mail is an offence punishable under the law...and considering the Cons tough on crime agenda, that may not be such a good idea. LOL


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2011)

kps said:


> They're threatening to ignore the back-to-work legislation...should be interesting.


Maybe it will turn out like Reagan and the air traffic controllers in the early eighties ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mguertin said:


> Maybe it will turn out like Reagan and the air traffic controllers in the early eighties ...


That was a golden moment.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

kps said:


> There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread.
> 
> First of all, courier companies do not compete with the Postal Service. Couriers offer premium services which the post office does not offer and if they do, then it's not 57¢. Couriers got into the time definitive business offering overnight service. You can't do that for 57¢. Courier services do not deliver ads and the bulk of their business is _business_.


The point is that courier services are effectively forbidden from competing in this area. If you wanted to offer two-day service in Toronto, you'd legally have to charge a minimum of $3.09 (3x Canada Post 50g letter rate) -- even if you were willing and able to do it for 50 cents.



> You're really fooling yourself if you believe there's a sealskin clad postie wearing snowshoes delivering mail up in Toktoyaktuk... igloo to igloo. I'll bet dollars to donuts that it's also contracted out just like UPS, FedEx and Purolator contract out in such remote places. One local enterprising company probably handles all four services plus other heavy distribution of goods.


Nobody said anything about posties going igloo-to-igloo. The point is that some of us assume it costs more for Canada Post to deliver a letter to the far north (even to a PO box, using a contractor) than from one end of a major city to another, and that therefore urban customers subsidize remote customers. Is that a faulty assumption?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

iMatt said:


> The point is that courier services are effectively forbidden from competing in this area. If you wanted to offer two-day service in Toronto, you'd legally have to charge a minimum of $3.09 (3x Canada Post 50g letter rate) -- even if you were willing and able to do it for 50 cents.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said anything about posties going igloo-to-igloo. The point is that some of us assume it costs more for Canada Post to deliver a letter to the far north (even to a PO box, using a contractor) than from one end of a major city to another, and that therefore urban customers subsidize remote customers. Is that a faulty assumption?


Certainly transportation costs to remote outposts will make delivery to smaller places more expensive on a 'per piece' basis, however I don't think it's so much that urban customers subsidize rural customers so much as 'ad mail' (bulk unaddressed admail, aka 'flyers') subsidizes 'first class'.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

kps said:


> Failing to deliver the mail is an offence punishable under the law...and considering the Cons tough on crime agenda, that may not be such a good idea. LOL


Gee it against the law to say have west coast MP's mail ends up on the wrong truck and land in the east coast and vice a versa? Communities with similar names are put in the wrong bag or cage of mail.

The Conservative MP's mail is handled re-handled and re-handeld again. This low value or no revenue mail could be quite expensive proposition for Canada Post to finally deliver.

Illegal? I think not. I think, that's why people came up an expression to cover such situations: "$h!t happens."


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MLeh said:


> Certainly transportation costs to remote outposts will make delivery to smaller places more expensive on a 'per piece' basis, however I don't think it's so much that urban customers subsidize rural customers so much as 'ad mail' (bulk unaddressed admail, aka 'flyers') subsidizes 'first class'.


For the sake of argument, imagine the ad mail business vanishes and CP has to raise the price of stamps to maintain the same income. Doesn't really matter how much in this scenario, the point remains that the "easier" mail (between two downtown addresses in the same city, etc.) subsidizes the "harder" mail. (And by law, the minimum price of a courier would also rise.)

So, as far as I'm concerned the artificial line between "postal service" and "courier service" is what really keeps CP going. I happen to support the existence of that line precisely because it ensures that everyone gets postal service for the same price, no matter where they live. But I can't deny that the line truly is artificial, and exists for the purpose of maintaining a situation that has been deemed to be in the public interest.

Without it, many urbanites would opt for low-cost competitors, and everyone else would have to pay more to move their documents, whether via Canada Post or couriers.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

iMatt said:


> For the sake of argument, imagine the ad mail business vanishes and CP has to raise the price of stamps to maintain the same income. Doesn't really matter how much in this scenario, the point remains that the "easier" mail (between two downtown addresses in the same city, etc.) subsidizes the "harder" mail. (And by law, the minimum price of a courier would also rise.)
> 
> So, as far as I'm concerned the artificial line between "postal service" and "courier service" is what really keeps CP going. I happen to support the existence of that line precisely because it ensures that everyone gets postal service for the same price, no matter where they live. But I can't deny that the line truly is artificial, and exists for the purpose of maintaining a situation that has been deemed to be in the public interest.
> 
> Without it, many urbanites would opt for low-cost competitors, and everyone else would have to pay more to move their documents, whether via Canada Post or couriers.


Certainly if you delete the ad mail the price of postage will increase, but I thought you wanted an answer based on reality not hypothesis. 

All addressed mail gets handled a minimum of three times - pickup, sorting, delivery. The only difference is transportation costs, which can be mitigated through the process of logistics. Having a regular route for letter pickup and letter drop off results in economies of scale that cannot be duplicated for smaller, more specialized delivery systems even within the urban environment. Urbanites in theory should get quicker service, but the actual handling costs (which form the bulk of the cost) are practically identical. It costs money to have a post box on every urban street corner and to have a postal worker pick up the mail on a regular basis, (whereas in small towns we drop off our mail at the same place we pick it up, which results in lower costs to the corporation due to decreased 'handling' of the mail and lower staffing levels).


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

How much of a joke is the Conservatives proposed bill offering the workers *less* than Canada Post's offer?

This cements Harper and co. as nothing more than corporate errand boys.

Back-to-work legislation imposes lower wages than Canada Post?s last offer - thestar.com


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MLeh said:


> Certainly if you delete the ad mail the price of postage will increase, but I thought you wanted an answer based on reality not hypothesis.


As of 2009, ad mail ("direct marketing") represented 23% of CP revenues. Canada Post - Annual Report

Take it away and your stamp gets more expensive, but you're still left with the problem of some locations being costlier to serve than others. Just ask Canada Post what it thinks about rural roadside mailboxes.

In other words, I don't dispute that ad mail revenue subsidizes the price of a stamp, but ultimately it's irrelevant to the question of whether the short-haul letters subsidize remote-destination letters -- because CP must charge the same for delivering a letter anywhere.



MLeh said:


> All addressed mail gets handled a minimum of three times - pickup, sorting, delivery. The only difference is transportation costs, which can be mitigated through the process of logistics.


Yes, the only difference is transportation costs, but don't you think it's a significant one? Collecting and delivering mail through small-town counters surely saves money, and might even make an Ottawa Valley village as cost-effective to serve as a big city neighbourhood with door-to-door service, but getting the mail to truly remote locations can't be cheap.



MLeh said:


> Having a regular route for letter pickup and letter drop off results in economies of scale that cannot be duplicated for smaller, more specialized delivery systems even within the urban environment.


It also results in massive overhead.

I used to work in a corporate mailroom (a long, long time ago). Looking back, my employer could easily justify the cost of maintaining a mailroom full of messengers, because they could send and receive thousands of items a day, often with same-hour delivery, at a per-item cost probably not much more than two regular postage stamps. (Details are fuzzy now, so that's just a ballpark guess; might have been less, might have been slightly more -- either way, it was a far, far cheaper option than a third-party courier.)

How could this be so cheap? Low-wage, non-union labour is obviously a big part of the answer. But low overhead is another. And if our mandate had been to provide two-day service, you can bet the cost would have been even lower.

So I believe most courier companies could use their existing infrastructure to provide next-day or two-day service at a surprisingly low price. It's actually remarkably easy to cover a large number of locations with a small team -- provided you aren't trying to cover _every single location, every single day_, the way Canada Post does.

If economies of scale + ad mail revenue were enough to keep Canada Post delivering letters everywhere for 57 cents a pop, would there be any need for the mandated minimum price of courier service? Or even the monopoly itself? 

My answer to that: without the monopoly and the effective prohibition of direct competition for letter mail, Canada Post would be in huge, huge trouble. It would lose a lot of big-city business, and be stuck serving the most expensive locations.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Our mailman is so good that he calls around back when he hears our dogs barking at him in the backyard, but does not get a response when he rings the doorbell. He knows that I am most likely either a)listening to my iPod Nano while gardening or b)dead. When he whistles out to the dogs and they all come running, that catches my attention. He has dog treats for all the dogs on his route. He is great. I have invited him in for some tea when he manages to deliver mail during a typical St.John's blizzard. He is not supposed to come inside of the houses, but neither is he supposed to be delivering the mail when the drifts are waist high.
> 
> Now, I have had good and great letter carriers ............ but don't get me started on the inside workers. I have had some really bad experiences with some of them.


Offering treats to dogs by letter carriers is strictly verboten by Canada Post Corp.

I am shocked that people are pleased to have Corporate rules and regulations flagrantly violated even if the act promotes good customer relations.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

i-rui said:


> How much of a joke is the Conservatives proposed bill offering the workers *less* than Canada Post's offer?
> 
> This cements Harper and co. as nothing more than corporate errand boys.
> 
> Back-to-work legislation imposes lower wages than Canada Post?s last offer - thestar.com


The much denied Conservative's secret agenda is surfacing.

Everyone hold onto your hats the Conservative ride is starting to get bumpy already.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Offering treats to dogs by letter carriers is strictly verboten by Canada Post Corp.
> 
> I am shocked that people are pleased to have Corporate rules and regulations flagrantly violated even if the act promotes good customer relations.


I know, which is why he hands me the treats. We are particular as to how much and what sorts of treats they get, so I usually give them to our neighbor, who has a dog that does not like the mailman, and thus, gets no treat.

He is just a good letter carrier ........... very friendly and thoughtful.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMatt said:


> My answer to that: without the monopoly and the effective prohibition of direct competition for letter mail, Canada Post would be in huge, huge trouble. It would lose a lot of big-city business, and be stuck serving the most expensive locations.


So let them serve the most expensive locations.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> How much of a joke is the Conservatives proposed bill offering the workers *less* than Canada Post's offer?





> “Imposing wage increases that are lower than Canada Post’s last offer punishes postal workers for a disruption that was caused by the corporation’s national lockout,” said national president Denis Lemelin.
> 
> “All told, it represents a theft of $35 million from postal workers and their families.”


...and returns it to the hard working citizens of Canada.


But...



> ...the reason rates are being set below the Canada Post offer is to match the last settlement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) unit in the post office. It also puts pressure on the union to settle or get even less than Canada Post is offering.


Sounds fair to me.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> ...and returns it to the hard working citizens of Canada.


not really, it goes to the government (you know that entity that you always claims spends too much money)



Macfury said:


> Sounds fair to me.


lol. to *you* i'm sure it would.

There is a clear ethical problem when the government steps in to help negotiate a deal between 2 parties, and then pushes a deal on one party that is worse then what was offered. That is not collective bargaining, that is government bullying.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> There is a clear ethical problem when the government steps in to help negotiate a deal between 2 parties, and then pushes a deal on one party that is worse then what was offered. That is not collective bargaining, that is government bullying.


I honestly don't see it. They can go back to the negotiating table and accept the Canada Post offer if they want.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I honestly don't see it. They can go back to the negotiating table and accept the Canada Post offer if they want.


How? If there isn't another party there to bargain with, who are they talking to?

Canada Post is not going any where except to talk to the Conservative Government.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

iMatt said:


> Nobody said anything about posties going igloo-to-igloo. The point is that some of us assume it costs more for Canada Post to deliver a letter to the far north (even to a PO box, using a contractor) than from one end of a major city to another, and that therefore urban customers subsidize remote customers. Is that a faulty assumption?


It's a fair assumption, but not necessarily true. However I too suspect that it costs them more per letter than in more densely populated areas. However they make it up on parcels which are rated according to destination (postal code) on top of dims and weight. Do they lose on the parcels as well, I don't know, but I would assume they know their costs.

For fun I ran the rate for a standard parcel from Mississauga to Toktoyaktuk and then to Yellowknife for a 25Lbs 12"x12"x12" package.

Mississauga (L5A) to Toktoyaktuk = $67.88 (X0E 1C0)
Mississauga (L5A) to Yellowknife = $29.01 (X1A 2N4)


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Speaking of rural mail....

Sask. workers not involved in postal strike told not to handle mail


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sonal said:


> Speaking of rural mail....
> 
> Sask. workers not involved in postal strike told not to handle mail


The same thing happened here in NL, Sonal.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

iMatt said:


> My answer to that: without the monopoly and the effective prohibition of direct competition for letter mail, Canada Post would be in huge, huge trouble. It would lose a lot of big-city business, and be stuck serving the most expensive locations.





Macfury said:


> So let them serve the most expensive locations.


I understand the argument for ending the monopoly. I'd even say there's a very good case for it, and won't be surprised if we see it significantly undermined in the next four years. (Legally, not just in the continued rise of alternatives not covered by the law.)

But I still believe in the principle of universal, affordable postal service for all Canadians, wherever they live. As such, I see the monopoly as a necessary evil. 

So my only point here is that economies of scale don't go very far in explaining Canada Post's viability. At best, CP's legislated protection from competition makes it nearly impossible to gauge their true importance.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMatt said:


> But I still believe in the principle of universal, affordable postal service for all Canadians, wherever they live. As such, I see the monopoly as a necessary evil.


What is an "affordable" price to send an envelope anywhere in Canada. $1?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> What is an "affordable" price to send an envelope anywhere in Canada. $1?


Currently 59 cents.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Currently 59 cents.


I know what it costs now. What is the upper limit of "affordable" to get a letter anywhere in Canada?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I know what it costs now. What is the upper limit of "affordable" to get a letter anywhere in Canada?


Wouldn't that upper limit change with the times and with inflation? 

Are you asking what is the upper limit right now at this point in time?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I know what it costs now. What is the upper limit of "affordable" to get a letter anywhere in Canada?


I think the people to ask about the upper limit cost of letter mail would be businesses and not individuals as most individuals now use electronic means of communication and letter mail more rarely whereas businesses still rely on letter mail quite heavily.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Macfury said:


> What is an "affordable" price to send an envelope anywhere in Canada. $1?


That depends who you ask. For me? Sure, a buck would be fine. 

But I have no doubt that a 41-cent jump in the price of a stamp would spark a major outcry, the way an added penny or two used to. It would likely also put a big dent in demand. And it could hasten the demise of the good old fashioned cheque.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

iMatt said:


> But I have no doubt that a 41-cent jump in the price of a stamp would spark a major outcry, the way an added penny or two used to. It would likely also put a big dent in demand. And it could hasten the demise of the good old fashioned cheque.


Considering that we can easily go through 100+ stamps a month at work, that's a big increase.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Considering that we can easily go through 100+ stamps a month at work, that's a big increase.


Yep, that is what I was saying Sonal, it is business people that will determine the upper limit as they use letter mail far, far more than individuals.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Yep, that is what I was saying Sonal, it is business people that will determine the upper limit as they use letter mail far, far more than individuals.


I saw, which is why I posted that as an example.

Just thinking... right now, one of the ways we are working around the strike by having our trades come to the office to pick up cheques. That costs a fair bit in gas, as it's not necessarily convenient for them to come here to pick up the cheque.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

No interest in the filibuster debate happening on the back to work legislation in Parliament overnight?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> No interest in the filibuster debate happening on the back to work legislation in Parliament overnight?


The NDP is simply doing the bidding of the union. What else can it do?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> No interest in the filibuster debate happening on the back to work legislation in Parliament overnight?


Zero interest, stupid meaningless waste of time and money.



Macfury said:


> The NDP is simply doing the bidding of the union. What else can it do?


Yep they have to be seen to be standing up for unions while the government is standing up for Canadians... even Bob Rae said the government laid the bait and the NDP took it hook line and sinker... 

They are displaying their lack of experience in being an Official Opposition at this point in time. A recent poll showed that 70% of Canadians are in agreement with the back to work legislation so they are already clearly demonstrating their vested interests and just how out of step they are with the average Canadian.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Seems kind of pointless, as talks have broken down and the whole point of the exercise was supposed to be to allow Canada Post and the Union 'time to hammer out a deal' independent of the legislation.

I don't know if the NDP is making any points among small business, who are probably most affected and are waiting for Canada Post to get back to work. (This is where the 'what they say during elections' versus 'what they actually do' comes into play. Jack was all over 'helping small business' during election mode.)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> Seems kind of pointless, as talks have broken down and the whole point of the exercise was supposed to be to allow Canada Post and the Union 'time to hammer out a deal' independent of the legislation.
> 
> I don't know if the NDP is making any points among small business, who are probably most affected and are waiting for Canada Post to get back to work. (This is where the 'what they say during elections' versus 'what they actually do' comes into play. Jack was all over 'helping small business' during election mode.)


Jack is overwhelmingly about chasing his declining support base of union voters. He will help small business at the expense of larger corporations, provided it does not interfere with union goals.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The NDP is simply doing the bidding of the union. What else can it do?


The Conservatives are doing the bidding of Canada Post, with anit-union animus and who's approval.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> The Conservatives are doing the bidding of Canada Post, with anit-union animus and who's approval.


Canada Post is the government, despite the sideshow of declaring it a "Crown Corporation." The feds are offering CUPW the same deal it offered similar workers in a similar employee class. 

Jack is supporting the "little man" in the unions at the expense of citizens and businesses.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

i was still getting my mail just fine during the rotating strikes. it only affected the mail in select communities, and just for a day or two.

i was still getting mail when Canada Post reduced service to 3 days a week across the country. That was delaying everything by a few days, but i could deal with.

I *stopped* getting the mail once the workers were locked out. Even worse they didn't give 72 hour notice like the union so there's piles of mail in limbo.

pretty foolish to begrudge the NDP for delaying the inevitable for a couple of days when the corporation was the cause for everything shutting down.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> i was still getting my mail just fine during the rotating strikes. it only affected the mail in select communities, and just for a day or two.
> 
> i was still getting mail when Canada Post reduced service to 3 days a week across the country. That was delaying everything by a few days, but i could deal with.
> 
> ...


Foolish? Hardly, the NDPs actions are foolish and a waste of time and money.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Yep, I think the NDP needs to let go of their traditional union powerbase and start appealing to the rest of us...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Canada Post is the government, despite the sideshow of declaring it a "Crown Corporation." The feds are offering CUPW the same deal it offered similar workers in a similar employee class.
> ...


If that's the truth then unlock them doors and let the workers in and get that mail a'moving.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> i was still getting my mail just fine during the rotating strikes. it only affected the mail in select communities, and just for a day or two.


You were getting some of the mail that had accumulated, but this was down to a trickle on the receiving end when Canada Post locked out the workers.

Still, I think CUPW has made a great case for reducing the workforce and delivering only on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> If that's the truth then unlock them doors and let the workers in and get that mail a'moving.


The moment the Old Democratic Party finishes its filibuster, this magic thing will happen.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I hope this strike ends soon. We can never get through to Purolater because the phone lines are too busy, and they are clearly having trouble making all their pick-ups.

There are some things that even under normal circumstances we have to courier.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

ideology is only a virtue when it's conservatives keeping junkies from clean needles (Health concerns be damned), building mega-jails to punish the falling crime rate, or selling cancer to 3rd world countries for a buck.

The minute the NDP pull an all-nighter on a ideological stand everyone must cry foul!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I'm more of a pragmatist than an idealogist.

Pragmatically, the NDP is supporting big union at the expense of small business, and against the wishes of the majority of Canadians. It's a bad move for them.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> We can never get through to Purolater because the phone lines are too busy, and they are clearly having trouble making all their pick-ups.


FedEx...UPS...ICS... 

Dont forget, Purolator is owned by Canada Post.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

kps said:


> FedEx...UPS...ICS...
> 
> Dont forget, Purolator is owned by Canada Post.


Purolater isn't on strike though. We have a corporate account with Purolatar, but not the others.

Oh, it turns out the City of Toronto is not issuing bills until the strike is over.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Purolater isn't on strike though. We have a corporate account with Purolatar, but not the others.
> 
> .


Getting an account with another courier company may take all of 5 minutes.

Maybe the _Sooner-or-later_ workers are in their solidarity mode with the posties.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Sonal said:


> I'm more of a pragmatist than an idealogist.
> 
> Pragmatically, the NDP is supporting big union at the expense of small business, and against the wishes of the majority of Canadians. It's a bad move for them.


the post was aimed more at macfury than you.

i don't have a problem with pragmatism. But it'd be nice if it was a 2 way street. Obviously the NDP opposed back to work legislation, but they wouldn't be fillibustering it if it didn't impose *worse* wage increase limits than were already offered, and use "final offer selection" as the method which the arbitrator makes the decision under *terms that favour the corporation*, instead of actually being an arbitrator and finding a solution down the middle.

The Harper government doesn't have any clue on how to work with people and come to a mediated solution, they simply want to ram their agenda without any thought of *pragmatism*. So as long as they think they can act that way then i have no problem with the NDP standing up to it as long as they can.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Conservatives had citizens in mind when they told CUPW to accept the settlement offered to similar workers in the federal government, or go back to the negotiating table. Why doesn't CUPW just accept the CP offer if it doesn't like this one?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Sonal said:


> I hope this strike ends soon. We can never get through to Purolater because the phone lines are too busy, and they are clearly having trouble making all their pick-ups.
> 
> There are some things that even under normal circumstances we have to courier.


The rotating strikes ended sometime ago. The workers have categorically stated this.

Sonal, Canada Post has caused the present work stoppage.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> The Conservatives had citizens in mind when they told CUPW to accept the settlement offered to similar workers in the federal government, or go back to the negotiating table. Why doesn't CUPW just accept the CP offer if it doesn't like this one?


because it's called "negotiations". why doesn't the corporation just accept the union's offer?

why doesn't the government order them back to work under the previous contract until a new one can be negotiated?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> The rotating strikes ended sometime ago. The workers have categorically stated this.


For a second there, I thought I saw a glimmer of honesty and you had said: "the workers have categorically _started_ this."

The rotating trikes ceased when they were locked out.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The Conservatives had citizens in mind when they told CUPW to accept the settlement offered to similar workers in the federal government, or go back to the negotiating table. Why doesn't CUPW just accept the CP offer if it doesn't like this one?


The Conservative's only have their ideology in mind. (Maybe that's all they can fit in their heads at one time.)

Sonal and others have addressed pragmatism, something that alludes the Conservative Government members and perhaps some of their boosters.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> The Conservative's only have their ideology in mind. (Maybe that's all they can fit in their heads at one time.)
> 
> Sonal and others have addressed pragmatism, something that alludes the Conservative Government members and perhaps some of their boosters.


It's hardly pragmatic to favour a tiny contingent of a shrinking minority of union members at the expense of the general public.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Sonal, Canada Post has caused the present work stoppage.


I'm well aware of that, and think it was stupid of them to do so--rotating strikes still allowed everyone else to operate, if somewhat more cautiously. The lockout was just a bad idea... I think I may have stated that earlier.



i-rui said:


> i don't have a problem with pragmatism. But it'd be nice if it was a 2 way street. Obviously the NDP opposed back to work legislation, but they wouldn't be fillibustering it if it didn't impose *worse* wage increase limits than were already offered, and use "final offer selection" as the method which the arbitrator makes the decision under *terms that favour the corporation*, instead of actually being an arbitrator and finding a solution down the middle.
> 
> The Harper government doesn't have any clue on how to work with people and come to a mediated solution, they simply want to ram their agenda without any thought of *pragmatism*. So as long as they think they can act that way then i have no problem with the NDP standing up to it as long as they can.


I don't have a problem with the Harper government coming in with a lower offer than what Canada Post put forth. Not all mediated solutions meet in the middle. If you cannot come to an agreement with someone and it goes to a 3rd party to be decided, then you get stuck with whatever you get.

As an example: yesterday, I went to the rental Tribunal. I offered to mediate with the tenant. He said no, I don't want to settle, I want a hearing. Later on, the Adjudicator told us to try to mediate a solution. So we sat down, we talked, I offered to meet him halfway, and he said no, that's not enough. I asked him to make a counter offer and he said you know, I don't want to settle, I want the whole amount. So we had a hearing. Now it's up to the Adjudicator, and who knows how it will go? He might worse than what he would have gotten while mediating, or I might get worse. 

But the point is, if 2 parties can't agree and then it gets left to a 3rd party to decide, you that doesn't mean that you automatically meet in the middle somehow. Sometimes you get worse. And frankly, I think that's GOOD to have as an option because it encourages both sides to come to an agreement rather than walking away from the table knowing that they will end up with at least a little better.



kps said:


> Getting an account with another courier company may take all of 5 minutes.


But I already have all the pre-printed forms and Puroletter envelopes.... that will take more than 5 minutes.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Sonal said:


> I don't have a problem with the Harper government coming in with a lower offer than what Canada Post put forth. Not all mediated solutions meet in the middle. If you cannot come to an agreement with someone and it goes to a 3rd party to be decided, then you get stuck with whatever you get.
> 
> As an example: yesterday, I went to the rental Tribunal. I offered to mediate with the tenant. He said no, I don't want to settle, I want a hearing. Later on, the Adjudicator told us to try to mediate a solution. So we sat down, we talked, I offered to meet him halfway, and he said no, that's not enough. I asked him to make a counter offer and he said you know, I don't want to settle, I want the whole amount. So we had a hearing. Now it's up to the Adjudicator, and who knows how it will go? He might worse than what he would have gotten while mediating, or I might get worse.
> 
> But the point is, if 2 parties can't agree and then it gets left to a 3rd party to decide, you that doesn't mean that you automatically meet in the middle somehow. Sometimes you get worse. And frankly, I think that's GOOD to have as an option because it encourages both sides to come to an agreement rather than walking away from the table knowing that they will end up with at least a little better.


but that ruling is up to the adjudicator. how would you feel if the adjudicator was appointed by the tenant's dad? and his father told the adjudicator he *had* to rule that you pay *more* than what the tenant wanted? and the guidelines on how it would be ruled were written by the dad and were all in the tenant's favour?

shouldn't the adjudicator be able to look at everything and come up with the decision fairly?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> but that ruling is up to the adjudicator. how would you feel if the adjudicator was appointed by the tenant's dad? and his father told the adjudicator he *had* to rule that you pay *more* than what the tenant wanted? and the guidelines on how it would be ruled were written by the dad and were all in the tenant's favour?
> 
> shouldn't the adjudicator be able to look at everything and come up with the decision fairly?


Well sitting there listening to all the hearings before me, I could tell that the Adjudicator was very tenant-friendly, had noted that the Adjudicator had stated a couple of things about how the law works that were actually not true, and consequently knew it was not going to go well for me regardless of the merits of my case. (I'd had this guy before, and watched him advise a tenant on how to sue me in the middle of the hearing.)

And in fact, it was past the end of the day, the Adjudicator was going to adjourn the hearing and let us all go home, and was telling us all to go to the counter to pick a new date, but then the tenant's mom started saying how it's unfair that I am unlawfully doing XYZ and it's not justice so he decided to stay late and have the hearing. (And an adjournment would have really been to my advantage.)

Can the Adjudicator award more than what the tenant is asking for? Sure. If he thinks I have wasted the Board's time, if he thinks that the tenant is entitle to more, etc. That's rare, but it's part of the risk I take.

How did I feel about that? I feel this it is what it is. As one of the paralegals (who got massively screwed over by this Adjudicator overturning a previous decision he'd made an hour earlier because the tenants' dad came back in, refused to be removed from the room and started to cry) said, welcome to the business.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Well, we're comparing apples to oranges, but i think that if you felt the process was fully rigged in the other party's favour you'd fight the process, or at least let it be known you weren't happy. To do otherwise would not be pragmatic, it would be defeatist.

I want the mail to start moving as well. I have a few things i'm waiting on, one from overseas. But i can see the bigger picture and resent the agenda that is being forced upon the country.

It's one thing to legislate them back to work, it's another to rig the process in the crown corporations favour. Besides there being an obvious conflict of interest, it speaks more to a long term plan to undermine unions.



Sonal said:


> As one of the paralegals (who got massively screwed over by this Adjudicator overturning a previous decision he'd made an hour earlier because the tenants' dad came back in, refused to be removed from the room and started to cry


maybe Jack can pull the same stunt.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> It's one thing to legislate them back to work, it's another to rig the process in the crown corporations favour. Besides there being an obvious conflict of interest, it speaks more to a long term plan to undermine unions.


I could see your point if this were a private company and the strike was being settled in favour of the employer. If the point was to undermine unions, they would have offered the union workers the wages of the unskilled--or at best, semi-skilled. The settlement offered by the feds still represents a sweetheart deal.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> Well, we're comparing apples to oranges, but i think that if you felt the process was fully rigged in the other party's favour you'd fight the process, or at least let it be known you weren't happy. To do otherwise would not be pragmatic, it would be defeatist.


Call it what you will, but the vast majority of my dealings with City of Toronto planning (yes, even under Ford) and the Landlord and Tenant Board tend to be very tenant-favourable. The law itself is very tenant-favourable. There are few processes for challenging any of these, and those that exist are expensive, time-consuming, and seldom work... and in the particular case, would not be worth the effort. To fight it would be idealistic... to work with it as best that I can is pragmatic.

But anytime I am up against the City or the Board, I know in advance that the deck is probably not stacked in my favour. This is why I almost always try to reach a solution through mediation--it's faster, cheaper, and I have more control over the outcome.

Understanding the environment in which I operate is part of how I approach any negotiation. The Union knows that it has a very anti-union majority government in place that's unlikely to favour them. 

Frankly, if the tenant had come back with any settlement, I'd have agreed to it because as I see it, the odds are that it would be a better deal than what I'd get from this particular Adjudicator. (Though stranger things have happened.)


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I could see your point if this were a private company and the strike was being settled in favour of the employer.


The cons already made that point with the Air Canada strike. Less than 24 hrs old, not the only option to customers, still up & running, and they wanted to legislate them back to work.



Macfury said:


> The settlement offered by the feds still represents a sweetheart deal.


not compared to the previous deal. It seems the union is being asked to make concessions, yet the corporation has been profitable for the last 16 years. The most profitable year either last year or the one prior.

All i'm saying is if the government is going to take the very serious measure of legislating anyone back to work, it needs to stay out of the arbitration process. It shouldn't be able to have it both ways.



Sonal said:


> Understanding the environment in which I operate is part of how I approach any negotiation. The Union knows that it has a very anti-union majority government in place that's unlikely to favour them.


I think the union understands it's getting screwed in this process, so will willingly take a slightly worse deal then they would get if they "played ball" under the circumstances. To try and deal under this climate adds legitimacy to the process which has been forced on them and hurts the labour movement in the country. I think their long term strategy is to grudgingly take the deal for 4 years, and see what the political/economic climate is once the contracts done.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> ideology is only a virtue when it's conservatives keeping junkies from clean needles (Health concerns be damned), building mega-jails to punish the falling crime rate, or selling cancer to 3rd world countries for a buck.
> 
> The minute the NDP pull an all-nighter on a ideological stand everyone must cry foul!


At $50,000 dollars an hour to keep Parliament running for something that will happen anyway it *IS* a waste of time and money.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> *The rotating strikes ended sometime ago*. The workers have categorically stated this.
> 
> Sonal, Canada Post has caused the present work stoppage.


They did not... they were ongoing when they were locked out... lockout is a legitimate response to strike action it has been for a very long time now.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> because it's called "negotiations". why doesn't the corporation just accept the union's offer?
> 
> why doesn't the government order them back to work under the previous contract until a new one can be negotiated?


They had been in negotiations for 8 months prior to this.... it seems quite obvious they were deadlocked.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> At $50,000 dollars an hour to keep Parliament running for something that will happen anyway it *IS* a waste of time and money.


Agreed. I understand that Jack has to make some kind of a stand here, but it's effectively symbolic... and it isn't about to endear him to more voters. Granted, the next election is some time away, but if the NDP want to stay a real force they have got to adapt... their union power-base is shrinking, their 'guilt-ridden liberal' base seems to be increasing.



screature said:


> They did not... they were ongoing when they were locked out... lockout is a legitimate response to strike action it has been for a very long time now.


Lockout is a legitimate response, but IMO, this was not their best move. It looks bad on them to the public, and puts more people on the side of the union. If they want to reduce the power of the union longterm, then their best bet is to allow the union to look like a petty entitled bunch of layabouts (whether this is true or not) and let the public grow increasingly anti-union. Frankly, that's a very easy thing to do in the City of Toronto where we're fairly fresh off a City Workers strike and have some big issues with the TTC union. If anyone wants to start bringing down the power of unions in general, now seems like a good time for it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> The cons already made that point with the Air Canada strike. Less than 24 hrs old, not the only option to customers, still up & running, and they wanted to legislate them back to work.


Right. I did not support that idea.



i-rui said:


> not compared to the previous deal. It seems the union is being asked to make concessions, yet the corporation has been profitable for the last 16 years. The most profitable year either last year or the one prior.


But sitting on a $3.2 billion unfunded pension liability.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> At $50,000 dollars an hour to keep Parliament running for something that will happen anyway it *IS* a waste of time and money.


So why don't the cons agree to leave out the wage increase limits, and have a full arbitration process instead of their "final offer selection" process? I'm sure the filibuster would have never happened if they agreed to these conditions and let the arbitration process be fair to both sides.



screature said:


> They had been in negotiations for 8 months prior to this.... it seems quite obvious they were deadlocked.


i already said this earlier :



i-rui said:


> All i'm saying is if the government is going to take the very serious measure of legislating anyone back to work, it needs to stay out of the arbitration process. It shouldn't be able to have it both ways.


meaning they shouldn't try to dictate terms, and need to stay out of the arbitration process.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> But sitting on a $3.2 billion unfunded pension liability.


but who's fault is that? who managed the pension? who invested in stocks that tanked? Is it the union's fault?

The pension problem affects more that just canada post, but i do agree that everyone needs to work together to get it under control But it's not fair to place the problem on the union's shoulders.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Right. I did not support that idea.
> 
> 
> 
> But sitting on a $3.2 billion unfunded pension liability.


If the Employer lived up to its obligations and actually put some money into the pension as it is required by the provisions of the pension plan, the pension plan would not have an unfunded liability.

The Government allows the Employer to not properly fund the pension plan, year after year, even when the Employer declares profits. Then the Employer (owned by the Government) and the Government wring their hand and wail of an impending crisis and decry the basis of the pension plan. How sad is that?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> If the Employer lived up to its obligations and actually put some money into the pension as it is required by the provisions of the pension plan, the pension plan would not have an unfunded liability.
> 
> The Government allows the Employer to not properly fund the pension plan, year after year, even when the Employer declares profits. Then the Employer (owned by the Government) and the Government wring their hand and wail of an impending crisis and decry the basis of the pension plan. How sad is that?


You're right. They should never have offered these gold-plated pensions in the first place--which were based on a continued Ponzi scheme of a consistent increase in demand for postal services. Perhaps Canada Post will declare bankruptcy to avoid it. Clearly it will never be able to afford this, as demand for service continues to drop like a stone.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> ...Lockout is a legitimate response, but IMO, this was not their best move. It looks bad on them to the public, and puts more people on the side of the union. If they want to reduce the power of the union longterm, then their best bet is to allow the union to look like a petty entitled bunch of layabouts (whether this is true or not) and let the public grow increasingly anti-union. Frankly, that's a very easy thing to do in the City of Toronto where we're fairly fresh off a City Workers strike and have some big issues with the TTC union. If anyone wants to start bringing down the power of unions in general, now seems like a good time for it.


The lockout was a strategy to force the union to take the offer that was on the table... as I am sure you are aware, because CPC knew that the government would legislate the union back to work if they did not reduce their demands in other areas other than wages.

The union leadership was not smart enough to figure this out... clearly... and now they will get less than they were bargaining for to begin with as far as wages are concerned...

CPC is a Crown Corporation and they are losing $25M a day because of the strike/lockout... the government's responsibility is to the people of Canada and the Crown Corp which is owned by the people of Canada, so on two fronts they are beholden to do what is best for the Crown Corp as well as the people of Canada (who also own the Corporation). 

The NDP are only supporting a very small subset of Canadians... members of CUPW. In so doing they are showing just how "rookie" they really are when it comes to being an Official Opposition, i.e. a government in waiting... who are you going to support, the public at large or a small subset of the population?

i-rui claims the government are being ideologues when it is clearly the NDP who are being ideologues... The NDP have never been in the position to make the tough decisions and make and support policy that is best for the broad base of Canadians as opposed to supporting their own minority position... on this front with 70% of Canadians favouring back to work legislation they are clearly failing to understand that as the Official Opposition they need to break out of their old mold of their traditional base and become more populist in their policies. Their are just lucky that this is happening at the beginning of an election cycle when the electorate will forget that this ever happened. If it was closer to an election they would be up s**t creek without a paddle.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You're right. They should never have offered these gold-plated pensions in the first place--which were based on a continued Ponzi scheme of a consistent increase in demand for postal services. Perhaps Canada Post will declare bankruptcy to avoid it. Clearly it will never be able to afford this, as demand for service continues to drop like a stone.


 What then no pension? 'cause you said?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> What then no pension? 'cause you said?


It'll happen. You think they're going to add it to the cost of a postage stamp?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> i-rui claims the government are being ideologues when it is clearly the NDP who are being ideologues...


actually i'm claiming they're *BOTH* being ideologues.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> actually i'm claiming they're *BOTH* being ideologues.


Sorry my apologies... I must have missed the part where you said the NDP were being ideologues...

But truth be told with 70% public support for back to work legislation and the Crown Corp losing $25M/day I fail to see where the government is being an ideologue. They are IMO simply being politically and fiscally pragmatic.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

once again, the cons are being ideologues because they are imposing their own terms into the arbitration process. Terms that dramatically favour the corporation over the workers.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> But I already have all the pre-printed forms and Puroletter envelopes.... that will take more than 5 minutes.


Oh Sonal...no one uses pre-printed forms anymore and the pickup courier will bring you supplies such as envelopes. Ok, it'll take 10 minutes from creating an account and shipping your first letter.

FedEx Ship Manager demo

Resource Centre - Online Shipping


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> once again, the cons are being ideologues because they are imposing their own terms into the arbitration process. Terms that dramatically favour the corporation over the workers.


Once again, the government is being pragmatic by supporting the general populace in returning mail service, which is especially important to Canadian small business, *and* by supporting the bottom line of a Crown Corp which *all* Canadians own, as opposed to supporting the minority electoral base of the NDP. They are *not* being ideologues, they are being pragmatic on two fronts.

Your own personal political proclivities make you blind to this but it is patently obvious to 70% of Canadians.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Well there's always...Stop....Telegram....Stop.

Or is there? Apparently, Yes there is.

When was the last time you sent one?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Oh Sonal...no one uses pre-printed forms anymore and the pickup courier will bring you supplies such as envelopes. Ok, it'll take 10 minutes from creating an account and shipping your first letter.
> 
> FedEx Ship Manager demo
> 
> Resource Centre - Online Shipping


Me? Sure. 

But I am the tech-savvy person at this office, and I do not want to end up in charge of sending all the packages. Gimme my pre-printed forms, thank you very much.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Once again, the government is being pragmatic by supporting the general populace in returning mail service, which is especially important to Canadian small business, *and* by supporting the bottom line of a Crown Corp which *all* Canadians own, as opposed to supporting the minority electoral base of the NDP. They are *not* being ideologues, they are being pragmatic on two fronts.
> 
> Your own personal political proclivities make you blind to this but it is patently obvious to 70% of Canadians.


70% of canadians want their mail delivered. that's understandable. 

they don't care about the terms under which that happens. that's unfortunate.

You just pointed out the inherent conflict of interest in this entire process. That conflict should rightfully preclude them from any input into the arbitration process.

By using your reasoning the government has the right to disband every public union once there is a work stoppage. As much as i know you conservatives would love that I don't think 70% of canadians would support that.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> 70% of canadians want their mail delivered. that's understandable.
> 
> they don't care about the terms under which that happens. that's unfortunate.
> 
> ...


No there isn't. The government is and should always be interested in the best interests of the *majority* of Canadians. Full stop. The NDP are the ones who are in the position of an "inherent conflict of interest"... again your personal political proclivities blind you to this notion.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2011)

I could care less about all the political ramifications of all of this ... I just want the thousands of dollars worth of cheques of mine they are holding for ransom, my perishable goods (that have long ago expired and are probably stinking up their warehouse somewhere) and the electronics that I paid a substantial premium for to have shipped via expedited service that I needed weeks ago. I guess all the delivery guarantees for premium services go out the window with a lockout huh? All the bills of mine that are in the mail ... they can keep them and pay them for me in return for ransoming my money and goods for all this time


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

mguertin said:


> I could care less about all the political ramifications of all of this ... I just want the thousands of dollars worth of cheques of mine they are holding for ransom, my perishable goods (that have long ago expired and are probably stinking up their warehouse somewhere) and the electronics that I paid a substantial premium for to have shipped via expedited service that I needed weeks ago. I guess all the delivery guarantees for premium services go out the window with a lockout huh? All the bills of mine that are in the mail ... they can keep them and pay them for me in return for ransoming my money and goods for all this time


Yup, I have a few things in the system I'm waiting for and they better get their **** together and resolve this...fast.

You ordered perishables through snail mail?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> No there isn't. The government is and should always be interested in the best interests of the *majority* of Canadians. Full stop. The NDP are the ones who are in the position of an "inherent conflict of interest"... *again your personal political proclivities blind you to this notion*.


and your political proclivities don't blind you??

lololol

that's precious coming from the "All Time" conservative apologist who pretends he's impartial.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

p.s.



screature said:


> The government is and should always be interested in the best interests of the *majority* of Canadians. Full stop.


the majority of canadians are against the f-35 jets being purchased.

oh wait.....

the majority of canadians are against lowering the corporate tax rate.

oh wait....

the majority of canadians are against building super-jails.

oh wait.....


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> p.s.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So when, for a change the Conservatives do something that the majority of Canadians *do* want, we should what, disagree and say that they are doing the wrong thing?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

i already said that my issue isn't that they're going to legislate them back to work (i want mail service up & running as well). my issue is they're dictating the terms of the arbitration to the corporation's benefit. 

they're using this work stoppage (many would argue they manufactured this work stoppage) to push their corporate agenda.

it's not wisconsin, but we're heading in that direction...


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2011)

kps said:


> Yup, I have a few things in the system I'm waiting for and they better get their **** together and resolve this...fast.
> 
> You ordered perishables through snail mail?


Yes ... don't laugh ... they are dog treats. All-natural stuff so there's no preservatives and stuff in them, goodies like beef trachea and dehydrated beef lung and nose -- stuff that dogs go nuts for and are not full of strange chemicals, allergens or who knows what else -- this stuff comes right from the hoof so to speak  

They are good for a while without refrigeration and snail mail expedited shipping is the standard shipping method. Did it many times before and with the expedited guaranteed time stuff it's usually no more than a couple days and then they go back into refrigeration and all is good. This time around, not so much.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> and your political proclivities don't blind you??
> 
> lololol
> 
> that's precious coming from the "*All Time" conservative apologist who pretends he's impartial.*


No. I said the government was wrong on a number of occasions the latest being their stand on asbestos. I never said I was impartial. We are all partial... it is the nature of a of governmental system that is based on parties... you have to choose one or just vote for a given MP... which has always been my stance.

Just because I disagree with *you* more than I disagree with the government doesn't make me anyone's apologist... I think for myself... I suspect and hope you would do the same...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> p.s.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What can I say... you are correct on the first two points.... the last one is incorrect as the government has no plans to build "super-jails" they have plans to upgrade and expand and modernize existing facilities....

Re: jets you know where I stand, no point in discussing it further.

Re: Corporate tax rates... I'm of mixed feelings on this one and this is the first post I have made in regard to the issue.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> What can I say...


Gets tiresome to be held accountable for supposedly supporting every policy espoused by the federal government--even those you've publicly disagreed with--doesn't it? Welcome to the club.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Anyone write to their NDP MP yet to complain about the tactics in Parliament?

After the Union started rotating strikes, I think the post office has every right to lock them out until there is some settlement.
No business can operate effectively and properly if some employees decide not to show up on a random basis.
The rotating strikes went on for a while and with no resolution in sight at the bargaining table, a lock out was really the only option to bring this all to a head.

I don't know if the NDP is too stupid to realize it, but not only are they doing the average Canadian a disservice by delaying this back-to-work legislation, they are also taling millions of dollars out of the pockets of the postal workers.
It doesn't matter what pay raise they end up with in the end - they will never regain what they are loosing no in salary.
I vaguely remember 48 000 postal workers, doesn't take many lost dollars each to get to the first million.

I personally wouldn't have any problem with mail delivery 3 times a week, Monday, Wednesday and Friday. That would be a huge saving to keep postal rates reasonable.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I took another look at the "sticky" points the union has - per the CTV news:



> 1. Canada Post wants new employees to begin at a lower wage than previous new hires. And while new employees would eventually reach the same maximum salary as past hires, it will take them longer to get there. The union is concerned the "two-tier" wage system will cause a divide in the workforce because all postal workers will be doing the same work but will be paid differently.


I fail to see where the problem is. 
New employees are always paid less for the same job as ones that have accumulated years of experience. Makes perfect sense to me, the employee with the experience is more valuable to the company than a rookie who is in the learning mode.




> The union is also concerned about the safety and health of their workers because of the new system Canada Post has introduced for sorting and delivering mail.


This is another red herring.
We have extensive workplace health and safety laws in this country,
Don't they for some reason not apply to postal workers?
Can't really comment more because the "issue" is so wishy washy.




> The opposition New Democrats are particularly against clauses in the bill that would force the union and Canada Post into final offer selection binding arbitration, meaning each side would present its final offer and an arbitrator picks one or the other.


Haven't heard that before, but it makes sense.
If that were not the case, the bickering (sorry negotiations) might go on forever.




> Another main sticking point is a proposed wage increase that's lower than the last offer put forward by Canada Post.


Well, I'm not sure if that is a union issue or an NDP issue.
The union kept saying that wages are not the main sticking point.
In any case, if one doesn't accept what is being offered, then the offer can be withdrawn and there is no requirement to make a new offer that is any better or even the same as the old one.

Seems to me the union should have taken the last Canada Post offer but they screwed it up - either by incompetence or because of greed.
Now their membership suffers and so do millions of Canadians especially small businesses.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> ...Seems to me the union should have taken the last Canada Post offer but they screwed it up - either by incompetence or because of greed.
> Now their membership suffers and so do millions of Canadians especially small businesses.


Yep, they miscalculated big time.... not great strategists or tacticians.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

What concerns me is that the Harper government has unilaterally decided to step in where it has not been invited and overrule the collective bargaining process, while claiming to represent "all Canadians" since they are not "beholden" to one side as they claim the NDP are. I guess if the postal workers are not good enough to be part of the group he calls "all Canadians" then this action would seem fair and responisble. Canada Post is not complaining because all the advantages go to them. If they don't lift a finger the workers will be go back to work and be forced to accept terms that were even worse than what Canada Post was offering.

Harper and his buddies need to respect the collective bargaining process and not undermine it. It may not be the best system, but at least it gives both sides a sense of ownership and responsibility for the process. Harper appears to be set on dismantling unions wherever and whenever possible. Such a prick.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> What concerns me is that the Harper government has unilaterally decided to step in where it has not been invited and overrule the collective bargaining process, while claiming to represent "all Canadians" since they are not "beholden" to one side as they claim the NDP are. I guess if the postal workers are not good enough to be part of the group he calls "all Canadians" then this action would seem far. Canada Post is not complaining because all the advantages go to them. If they don't lift a finger the workers will be go back to work and be forced to accept terms that were even worse than what Canada Post was offering.
> 
> Harper and his buddies need to respect the collective bargaining process and not undermine it. It may not be the best system, but at least it gives both sides a sense of ownership and responsibility for the process. Harper appears to be set on dismantling unions wherever and whenever possible. Such a prick.


Couldn't agree more.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> What concerns me is that the Harper government has unilaterally decided to step in where it has not been invited and overrule the collective bargaining process, while claiming to represent "all Canadians" since they are not "beholden" to one side as they claim the NDP are. I guess if the postal workers are not good enough to be part of the group he calls "all Canadians" then this action would seem fair and responisble. Canada Post is not complaining because all the advantages go to them. If they don't lift a finger the workers will be go back to work and be forced to accept terms that were even worse than what Canada Post was offering.
> 
> Harper and his buddies need to respect the collective bargaining process and not undermine it. It may not be the best system, but at least it gives both sides a sense of ownership and responsibility for the process. Harper appears to be set on dismantling unions wherever and whenever possible. Such a prick.


What you seem to forget is that the last agreement expired Dec. 31st - here we are six month later and the Union and Canada Post still hadn't come to an agreement.
Small business especially is suffering right now, and so will the economy.
Why would you think the Harper government needs an invitation to intervene?
At this point in that particular process which is clearly not working, the government has an obligation to step in.
I'm trying to keep an open mind on this and look at both sides, but from what I have read so far, there was absolutely no justification for the rotating strikes to even start.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> ...Such a prick.


Yep looking out for the best interests of more than 30,000,000 people vs. 48,000... such a prick indeed.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

krs said:


> I
> I fail to see where the problem is.
> New employees are always paid less for the same job as ones that have accumulated years of experience. Makes perfect sense to me, the employee with the experience is more valuable to the company than a rookie who is in the learning mode.


huh? new employees *still* made less under the old agreement. it's not like they *ever* made the same as experienced workers when they started. Canada post now wants to lower the starting wage by $7/hr. that's a pretty dramatic change. It would take them 7 years to raise up to where they are now.

The whole idea about unions is to form a collective that is stronger than the individual. if the union were to sell out all new employees it negates to whole point of the union. When corporations pull these stunts it's more about dividing & conquering the union instead of business necessity.



krs said:


> This is another red herring.
> We have extensive workplace health and safety laws in this country,
> Don't they for some reason not apply to postal workers?
> Can't really comment more because the "issue" is so wishy washy.


i know a couple of postal workers, and the truth about what goes on is pretty crazy. many workers have to use their own vehicles to deliver mail. they're not insured to do it of course, but they still have to. From what i understand the relationship between management and workers is severely dysfunctional. I'd say the union would share the blame in this as well, but obviously things need to change on both sides.



krs said:


> Haven't heard that before, but it makes sense.
> If that were not the case, the bickering (sorry negotiations) might go on forever.


or you know the arbitrator could actually maybe.....arbitrate? look at both sides arguments and deals offered, come to a compromise that is fair to both sides and where applicable meet half way?

when the arbitrator has 2 offers to choose from, and the government gives guidelines that favour the corporation, there will only ever be one offer chosen. it's been set up to be a sham.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Yep looking out for the best interests of more than 30,000,000 people vs. 48,000... such a prick indeed.


Link?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Link?


Sorry 54,00 members, going off of old data.... the point is still the same and changes nothing.

Our Members



> Our 54,000 members...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Sorry 54,00 members, going off of old data.... the point is still the same and changes nothing.
> 
> Our Members


It's the 30,000,000 part I'm more interested in.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

krs said:


> At this point in that particular process which is clearly not working, the government has an obligation to step in.


Absolutely, especially considering the sweetheart deal Canada Post receives by having competitors barred from entering the letter carrying market.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> It's the 30,000,000 part I'm more interested in.


The population of Canada... you know.... the rest of us.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> The population of Canada... you know.... the rest of us.


You have to subtract the few unionistas cheering from the sidelines. The old cranks who attend the May Day parade.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

mrjimmy said:


> Link?


im going to guess he means the best interests of all canadians vs the postal workers


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> The population of Canada... you know.... the rest of us.


I realize that. I'm sure that many of the 30,000,000 can be lumped in with that 54000. Your post made it seem as though ALL of Canada was in agreement that the Government was looking out for their best interests.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

whoops. had that open without hitting "post" for too long haha


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> I realize that. I'm sure that many of the 30,000,000 can be lumped in with that 54000. Your post made it seem as though ALL of Canada was in agreement that the Government was looking out for their best interests.


Yes, I saw one old fellow talking to one of the strikers. Perhaps he was supporting them.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Absolutely, especially considering the sweetheart deal Canada Post receives by having competitors barred from entering the letter carrying market.


doesn't that benefit the corporation as well?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Yes, I saw one old fellow talking to one of the strikers. Perhaps he was supporting them.


Out for an afternoon troll are we?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Yes, I saw one old fellow talking to one of the strikers. Perhaps he was supporting them.


if the polls show 70% in favour of back to work legislature doesn't that mean 30% don't support that?

surely 30% of 30,000,000 is more than "one old fellow".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> doesn't that benefit the corporation as well?


Yes it does. That's why the government has the right to intervene.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Yes it does. That's why the government has the right to intervene.


perhaps a right to legislate an end to the work stoppage. definitely not a right to dictate terms. once again someone has demonstrated the inherent conflict of interest in this entire manoeuvre.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> I realize that. I'm sure that many of the 30,000,000 can be lumped in with that 54000. Your post made it seem as though ALL of Canada was in agreement that the Government was looking out for their best interests.


CPC services all Canadians... However to your point, which is legitimate, depending on the source you look at Canada's current population is 34,495,000 (that is why I said *more* than 30,000,000). According to the most recent poll 70% of Canadians support back to work legislation for CPC workers. 



> The first nationwide opinion poll on back-to-work legislation for postal workers puts the NDP on the hot seat, with *70 per cent of Canadians supporting the measure*.


Hill Times

So 70% of 34,495,000 is 24,146,500.

So your point is well taken and I correct my statement....

The government is looking out for the best interests of 24,146,500 people vs. 54,000. There, now the math is more accurate... sorry for the inaccuracy and confusion. I hope this clears that up. The point is still the same...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> CPC services all Canadians... However to your point, which is legitimate, depending on the source you look at Canada's current population is 34,495,000 (that is why I said *more* than 30,000,000). According to the most recent poll 70% of Canadians support back to work legislation for CPC workers.
> 
> 
> Hill Times
> ...


Or the Government is not looking out for the best interests of over 10 million people.

Either way, Harper is still a prick.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Or the Government is not looking out for the best interests of over 10 million people.
> 
> Either way, Harper is still a prick.


No he is still looking out for the best interests of even those 10 million people, they just are too biased to appreciate it. 

Nice that you appreciate a well reasoned argument and aren't blinded by your personal proclivities....


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Nice that you appreciate a well reasoned argument and aren't blinded by your personal proclivities....


Mine and 9,999,999 others.


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

Harper is not a prick. A prick has a use!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Mine and 9,999,999 others.


Almost 2/3rds of Canadians agree with the government... it is too bad that you agree with the minority and I understand your angst. In my life I have often been in a minority position, as I am now being an Anglo living in the province of Quebec... It is a tough road to hoe, so I understand where you are coming from and your frustration. 

The fact is we live in a democracy and as such, for better or worse, we have to live by the tyranny of the majority... whether the majority be right or wrong in terms of the "bigger picture" and make do as best we can within those limitations.

Stephen Harper may be a prick... IMO he is not... but based on the support that he has for back to work legislation for CPC workers and the decision to bring the legislation forward, when it comes to democracy with nearly a 2/3 majority supporting him, it is not this decision that should be a qualifier for the appellation of "prick" being applied to him.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Almost 2/3rds of Canadians agree with the government... it is too bad that you agree with the minority and I understand your angst. In my life I have often been in a minority position, as I am now being an Anglo living in the province of Quebec... It is a tough road to hoe, so I understand where you are coming from and your frustration.
> 
> The fact is we live in a democracy and as such, for better or worse, we have to live by the tyranny of the majority... whether the majority be right or wrong in terms of the "bigger picture" and make do as best we can within those limitations.
> 
> Stephen Harper may be a prick... IMO he is not... but based on the support that he has for back to work legislation for CPC workers and the decision to bring the legislation forward, when it comes to democracy with nearly a 2/3 majority supporting him, it is not this decision that should be a qualifier for the appellation of "prick" being applied to him.


Save your condescension for someone else. Harper is a prick. Over 10 million agree with me. Probably even more; we all know about the accuracy of polls.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Save your condescension for someone else. Harper is a prick. Over 10 million agree with me. Probably even more; we all know about the accuracy of polls.


I understand it's tough to watch the age of the union coming to a close, but it's not worth this kind of anger.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I understand it's tough to watch the age of the union coming to a close, but it's not worth this kind of anger.


:lmao:

I'm far from angry. I would contend that we are witnessing the rebirth of unionism. The minute pro-corporate forces are openly opposing them, their relevance is brought to light.

We shall see.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Save your condescension for someone else. Harper is a prick. Over 10 million agree with me. Probably even more; we all know about the accuracy of polls.


I am sorry that you see the content of my post as being condescending as it couldn't further from my intent, I was being honest and truthful relative to my own experience. 

Yes polls can be inaccurate but with this one given even a 5%, even 10%, deviation you still would find yourself in the minority. Democracy is not built on consensus, although you may wish it were.... and then truly almost nothing would ever get done.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> :lmao:
> 
> I'm far from angry. I would contend that we are witnessing the rebirth of unionism. The minute pro-corporate forces are openly opposing them, their relevance is brought to light.
> 
> We shall see.


I guess as the numbers dwindle, the remaining members are growing stronger.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Gets tiresome to be held accountable for supposedly supporting every policy espoused by the federal government--even those you've publicly disagreed with--doesn't it? *Welcome to the club.*


Sorry I missed this post earlier...

Been in the club for a long time now...

Think we should form a non-profit corporation and start charging for memberships and taking donations with a home base in a tax free zone like Free Port and appoint ourselves as directors and hire a couple of (non-unionized) employees just to make it look legit? We could potentially stand to make a lot of money....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Hmmm, swearing at the PM is a sure sign of union sympathy. But unions in this country have little sympathy left and what little they have, is dwindling every year. The more they take strike action, the more support they lose. They are dinosaurs that have outlived their use in society and mercifully will one day be extinct.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Hmmm, swearing at the PM is a sure sign of union sympathy. But unions in this country have little sympathy left and what little they have, is *swindling* every year.


Great typo! :lmao::clap: Freudian slip, maybe?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yeah, apropo, but a typo and corrected all the same.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Great typo! :lmao::clap: Freudian slip, maybe?


I was just sending SINC a PM alerting him to his typo when I saw your post come through...

I was going to say "Even though your post may be more accurate, change it quick before before people dump on you for it..."

Maybe it wasn't a typo...  What then? O_M_G!


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I understand it's tough to watch the age of the union coming to a close, but it's not worth this kind of anger.





SINC said:


> Hmmm, swearing at the PM is a sure sign of union sympathy. But unions in this country have little sympathy left and what little they have, is dwindling every year. The more they take strike action, the more support they lose. They are dinosaurs that have outlived their use in society and mercifully will one day be extinct.


and there is that conservative agenda bubbling to the surface. i read this on another forum, and it's 100% bang on :



> Thing is man, I love how Harper is presented with options, and instead of taking the simple option, he takes the one that's just a little bit too far out there, the kind of decisions that inflame, **** off and alienate - and now we're in a bigger mess!
> 
> See - people are talking about the union striking, the CP locking out, the NDP filibustering - but really - if Harper had just done "traditional" back to work legislation we'd be getting our mail on monday.
> 
> ...


this has little to do with getting the mail service back up & running. this is a fight the cons planned to undermine support for unions.

anyone who thinks otherwise is politically naive.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> and there is that conservative agenda bubbling to the surface. i read this on another forum, and it's 100% bang on :
> 
> this has little to do with getting the mail service back up & running. t*his is a fight the cons planned to undermine support for unions.*
> 
> *anyone who thinks otherwise is politically naive.*


Yep... because they were positive they were going to win a majority and so was CPC...

What is politically naive to think is that CPC who have been in negotiations with CUPW for 8 months isn't going to take advantage of the position a majority government has to offer, regardless they be Con or Lib... the NDP have just showed that they are politically unsophisticated enough to not understand what is at stake...

Yep, I agree, becuase the all seeing, all knowing i-rui says so... Praise be to him and the guidance and glory he offers...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> CPC services all Canadians... However to your point, which is legitimate, depending on the source you look at Canada's current population is 34,495,000 (that is why I said *more* than 30,000,000). According to the most recent poll 70% of Canadians support back to work legislation for CPC workers.
> 
> 
> Hill Times
> ...


So what was the question that the pollsters actually asked respondents? How is anyone absolutely sure the Conservative Government's policies have 70% support of the population for the legislation? Perhaps 70% of respondents merely wanted a resumption of postal services and perhaps respondents never were asked if they support unfair, draconian and biased back to work legislation.

Of course the Conservafacts must come out. The Conservative tattlers must carry the party's line in the best light. Why tell the whole truth when a convenient message will do?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I seem to recall a previous strike where the Posties were ordered back to work the first day.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

While I might have my facts wrong, it is my understanding that the legislation the government is trying to put in place has specified wage rates. If this is the case I wouldn't think this is back to work legislation but a form of arbitration. I'm not sure, if this is true, it is a road we want to go down. That being said, I have no problem with back to work legislation as ( since we have no other option for first class mail ) the CPC has a monopoly and I would consider this an essential service.... but if it is a form of arbitration by the government, then I have a concern that a precedent will be set for all forms of contract disputes...both public and private.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> While I might have my facts wrong, it is my understanding that the legislation the government is trying to put in place has specified wage rates. If this is the case I wouldn't think this is back to work legislation but a form of arbitration. I'm not sure, if this is true, it is a road we want to go down. That being said, I have no problem with back to work legislation as ( since we have no other option for first class mail ) the CPC has a monopoly and I would consider this an essential service.... but if it is a form of arbitration by the government, then I have a concern that a precedent will be set for all forms of contract disputes...both public and private.


I agree. I had concerns about the bluster regarding Air Canada, for example.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

> The government is looking out for the best interests of 24,146,500 people vs. 54,000. There, now the math is more accurate... sorry for the inaccuracy and confusion. I hope this clears that up. The point is still the same...


I don't know where people got the idea that the postal workers were happy with this strike and that the government somehow worked against them.
The ones I talked to were pissed off at their own union for not accepting the last Canada Post offer - for one their increase now is less than what it could have been, for another, they lost more in wages than any wage increase can possibly make up over the next few years.

I didn't realize that the members were never allowed to vote on the last Canada Post offer.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Tough times are coming for public-sector unions

Good article: sums up the mood and attitudes of a lot of people on public sector unions vs the experience of most working Canadians. Particularly:



> The unions are pitching the idea that they represent the front line, paving the way for better wages and working conditions for everyone: "Public sector unions protect the good life that we in Canada enjoy," asserts Jan Chaboyer, president of the Brandon & District Labour Council.
> 
> But a whole lot of Canadians in the private sector lately have been taking it on the chin. They've experienced layoffs, wage freezes and rollbacks, and the curtailment of some of their benefits.
> 
> And they suspect the public sector unions have been protecting 'the good life' that only the public sector employees enjoy, and that all Canadians must pay for.


Have been thinking a little bit, and lately it seems most of the strikes or strike threats lately seem to be largely public sector employees: TTC (several times), City of Toronto, Canada Post, Public Employees at York University, York University Faculty....

I suppose from the private sector, there was the Screen Actors Guild...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> Have been thinking a little bit, and lately it seems most of the strikes or strike threats lately seem to be largely public sector employees





SINC said:


> But unions in this country have little sympathy left and what little they have, is dwindling every year. The more they take strike action, the more support they lose. They are dinosaurs that have outlived their use in society and mercifully will one day be extinct.


I rest my case.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Essentially they expect the middle class to fund their gold-plated salaries and pensions forever. Monkeys on our backs...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Tough times are coming for public-sector unions
> 
> Good article: sums up the mood and attitudes of a lot of people on public sector unions vs the experience of most working Canadians. Particularly:
> 
> ...


that's because in Canada most of the public sector is unionized (71%) and the private sector is not (16%).

Perhaps if the private sector workers unionized they wouldn't be "taking it on the chin" while their corporations continue to make record profits?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

This particular strike is over... probably time to move on....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> Perhaps if the private sector workers unionized they wouldn't be "taking it on the chin" while their corporations continue to make record profits?


If that happened, the economy would collapse under the weight of union wage and benefit demands. Like I said, their day is nearly done and the sooner the better for the public sector.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> that's because in Canada most of the public sector is unionized (71%) and the private sector is not (16%).
> 
> Perhaps if the private sector workers unionized they wouldn't be "taking it on the chin" while their corporations continue to make record profits?


Gee I wonder where you go to get your info...

Fast Facts: Canada Post locks out postal workers; Harper locks out collective bargaining
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

And they have the audacity to say:



> The CCPA is an independent, *non-partisan* research institute concerned with issues of social and economic justice.


 It is to laugh, on the page with the article where you obviously derived your data is this endorsement:









Really too funny that the CCPA would dare to call itself non-partisan. :lmao:


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> This particular strike is over... probably time to move on....


This particular *lockout* is still on though. 

Funny the Canada Post Corp. seems somebody gonna get a hurt real bad namely small business and the economy will get a hurt real bad also. So this time it's the Conservative Government to blame for holding up mail. No NDP Power in the Senate.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> If that happened, the economy would collapse under the weight of union wage and benefit demands. Like I said, their day is nearly done and the sooner the better for the public sector.


tell that to Germany. They have a incredibly robust industrial economy with a strong unionized workforce.



screature said:


> Gee I wonder where you go to get your info...
> 
> It is to laugh, on the page with the article where you obviously derived your data is this endorsement:


nope. not from there. keep on assuming though..... you're good at it.:clap:


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

BigDL said:


> This particular *lockout* is still on though.


it's no use. they forget the facts that don't fit their narrative.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> If that happened, the economy would collapse under the weight of union wage and benefit demands. Like I said, their day is nearly done and the sooner the better for the public sector.


sure, that's exactly what the multi billion dollar corporations and their overpaid execs and their millions of dollars in bonuses want you to spread.

We have a government now doing their bidding by making ordinary canadians wait for their tax breaks while it gets all handed to those who don't need it.

Brilliant. The conservative way apparently. (and liberal when they have their turn at screwing ordinary Canadians).


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> that's because in Canada most of the public sector is unionized (71%) and the private sector is not (16%).
> 
> Perhaps if the private sector workers unionized they wouldn't be "taking it on the chin" while their corporations continue to make record profits?


Why wouldn't they? If it's cheaper or easier to do without a union, a corporation will always find a way to do without a union. 

A few careers back when I was coding, there was always a bit of how there should be a software programmers union... most people's responses were "who wants one?" the thinking being that people would prefer to move up, down or sideways based on merit or ability rather than union rules of fairness. Plus, a lot of people then saw coding a short-term career, and not really a job that they needed life-long security in.

I'm reminded of when a friend of mine, who worked part-time at Zellers, was approached to join a union. He told them to get lost--it wasn't a job he had any interest in keeping. 

To be honest, the notion of a single, lifelong career in one organization seems very outdated to me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Gee I wonder where you go to get your info...


Canadian Centre for Independent Socialist Policy Alternatives


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> tell that to Germany. They have a incredibly robust industrial economy with a strong unionized workforce.





> Like British unions, unions in Germany face the serious problem of crumbling membership. Union membership peaked in 1981 and has fallen ever since. Union density too has fallen with less than a quarter of German employees now members. And as in Britain, the sustained decline in membership and density seems to have been the consequence of both external factors – such as changes in the composition of the workforce – and internal factors – unions’ own structures and policies.


_‘Trade Unions in Germany: On the Road to Perdition?’ by Claus Schnabel is a chapter in Trade Unions: Resurgence or Demise? (Routledge, 2005). Claus Schnabel is at the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg._


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Why wouldn't they? If it's cheaper or easier to do without a union, a corporation will always find a way to do without a union.


oh, i understand why corporations don't want unions, that's obvious. My point is that for a country's labour force it's shortsighted. Capital is liquid. It can be moved across the planet to take advantage of the cheap workforce that globalization offers. A labour force is stuck to it's geographic location. it's already happened with outsourcing call centres to india.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> oh, i understand why corporations don't want unions, that's obvious. My point is that for a country's labour force it's shortsighted. Capital is liquid. It can be moved across the planet to take advantage of the cheap workforce that globalization offers. A labour force is stuck to it's geographic location. it's already happened with outsourcing call centres to india.


Yes. It happens much more quickly when the Canadian alternative is expensive unionized labour.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Yes. It happens much more quickly when the Canadian alternative is expensive unionized labour.


awesome! a race to the bottom! Hope Canada comes in first!


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

BigDL said:


> This particular *lockout* is still on though.
> 
> Funny the Canada Post Corp. seems somebody gonna get a hurt real bad namely small business and the economy will get a hurt real bad also. So this time it's the Conservative Government to blame for holding up mail. No NDP Power in the Senate.


Are you off on a tangent totally?

Tomorrow they are going to sort the mail Canada Post has in their facilities and Tuesday the posties are going to deliver.

What *lockout* is still on ?????

And your second comment makes no sense either.
This legislation went through the senate and received Royal Assent in record time - on a Sunday no less - nobody except the short-sighted NDP held anything up.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> awesome! a race to the bottom! Hope Canada comes in first!


We will do better than other nations who have higher union membership--and thus greater labour costs with no value added to the employer. 

The only reason the modern UAW/CAW was able to pull off its ridiculous demands in the past, for example, is because the dodgy infrastructure in foreign countries prevented the automakers from locating there sooner. Guess what? This ain't 1962.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

krs said:


> I don't know where people got the idea that the postal workers were happy with this strike and that the government somehow worked against them.
> The ones I talked to were pissed off at their own union for not accepting the last Canada Post offer - for one their increase now is less than what it could have been, for another, they lost more in wages than any wage increase can possibly make up over the next few years.
> 
> I didn't realize that the members were never allowed to vote on the last Canada Post offer.


I'm not surprised the members weren't allowed to vote. I don't have a grudge against the majority of the workers.

When I was in college I worked the inside post office. I can tell you the union at that time were goons. Everyone was scared of them. Did you know there is no secret vote? Voting was done by a show of hands and those voting against the union leadership are duly noted. Nasty things happened to those who dissented, from tires slashed to property spray painted or worse. I don't know the union mentality today but I suspect it hasn't changed much. I feel sorry for the individual workers caught up in the BS. This is one union that needs to be put out to pasture.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> oh, i understand why corporations don't want unions, that's obvious. My point is that for a country's labour force it's shortsighted. Capital is liquid. It can be moved across the planet to take advantage of the cheap workforce that globalization offers. A labour force is stuck to it's geographic location. it's already happened with outsourcing call centres to india.


You say this like this is a horrible thing.

I believe that job security for most people is an out-dated notion. I don't think it is realistic for anyone to expect to take on one job and hold it for life, with the exception of a few highly specialized roles. I believe the best thing for a workforce is to be adaptable and able to transfer skills and knowledge from role to role throughout a their working lives, to be able to shift careers as and when needed.

I'm not against the notion of a union per se, but I see no value in preserving jobs for no reason other than to keep people from having to adapt to change.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

adagio said:


> I'm not surprised the members weren't allowed to vote. I don't have a grudge against the majority of the workers.


Agreed. The purpose of CUPW is to aggrandize the people in charge of it--and they're doing it at the expense of the people they represent.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

In this case I support back to work legislation but here are my issues:

1) It was management that created the stoppage in work, not the union, so this penalizes the workers for management's decisions. Yes, I know they had a rotating strike, but rotating isn't equal to a full strike.

2) Legislating terms of employment is unfair, especially worse than was actually being offered. This should have been a back to work legislation with forthcoming binding arbitration.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> tell that to Germany. They have a incredibly robust industrial economy with a strong unionized workforce.
> 
> 
> 
> nope. not from there. keep on assuming though..... you're good at it.:clap:


You made no link to your source... it was the first one that come up on Google as I certainly wasn't going to take your word for it without citation... 

As far as assumptions go I may have assumed in this particular case but I actually think you hold the title in that regard.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ertman said:


> In this case I support back to work legislation but here are my issues:
> 
> 1) It was management that created the stoppage in work, not the union, so this penalizes the workers for management's decisions. Yes, I know they had a rotating strike, but rotating isn't equal to a full strike.
> 
> 2) Legislating terms of employment is unfair, especially worse than was actually being offered. This should have been a back to work legislation with forthcoming binding arbitration.


There was no longer enough mail to be worth delivering with the rotating strikes. 

The government didn't dictate a wage. It told the parties to get back to the table or it would impose the wage given to other civil servants--and a very generous one. If I were CUPW I would have accepted the CP offer at that point.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Macfury said:


> There was no longer enough mail to be worth delivering with the rotating strikes.
> 
> The government didn't dictate a wage. It told the parties to get back to the table or it would impose the wage given to other civil servants--and a very generous one. If I were CUPW I would have accepted the CP offer at that point.


ditto

I should add that the rotating strikes were costing the post office millions of dollars.
With a private organization that money would come out of their profits and the shareholders pockets - with Canada Post that money comes out of your and my pocket.

Considering the contract negotiations had been going on for a ridiculous length of time already with no resolution, I think that was the only option. The post office can't bleed millions and then expect the taxpayer to bail it out.

Besides, the open issues that the union had were ridiculous - new employees getting the same salary as long term employees - when I mentioned that to people they just laughed in disbelief.
Same for the health and safety issues - why do we need some special arrangement for the postal workers, doesn't sound like a high-risk job to me.
Somewhere I read that with the new machinery that they were concerned about the posties had to walk two more hours a day but no further explanation.
A lot of this is so wishy washy it's unbelievable.
If someone has more information on this health and safety issue I would be all ears.

This was a power struggle started by the union and then moved to an equally ridiculous struggle between the government and the opposition - all at the expense of the postal worker and the general public especially small business - nothing more.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

krs said:


> ditto
> 
> I should add that the rotating strikes were costing the post office millions of dollars.
> With a private organization that money would come out of their profits and the shareholders pockets - with Canada Post that money comes out of your and my pocket.


 Where do you get your information? Canada Post was profitable (last 15 years) Canada Post is a "private organization."



krs said:


> Considering the contract negotiations had been going on for a ridiculous length of time already with no resolution, I think that was the only option. The post office can't bleed millions and then expect the taxpayer to bail it out.


What do you know about the average time to negotiate anything let alone the normal time to conclude negotiations for collective agreements?



krs said:


> Besides, the open issues that the union had were ridiculous - new employees getting the same salary as long term employees - when I mentioned that to people they just laughed in disbelief.
> Same for the health and safety issues - why do we need some special arrangement for the postal workers, doesn't sound like a high-risk job to me.
> Somewhere I read that with the new machinery that they were concerned about the posties had to walk two more hours a day but no further explanation.
> A lot of this is so wishy washy it's unbelievable.
> If someone has more information on this health and safety issue I would be all ears.


 I think not, it seems information has to fit a narrow narrative to fit in to a particular world view. 



krs said:


> This was a power struggle started by the union and then moved to an equally ridiculous struggle between the government and the opposition - all at the expense of the postal worker and the general public especially small business - nothing more.


 This is a power struggle with a stacked deck in favour of Canada Post starting on May 2nd, this year.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Where do you get your information? Canada Post was profitable (last 15 years) Canada Post is a "private organization."...


Canada Post is *NOT* a private organization. It is a Crown Corp and as such is effectively owned by the government i.e., the people of Canada... "Where do you get your information?"


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Where do you get your information? Canada Post was profitable (last 15 years) Canada Post is a "private organization."


I never said anything about past history. That's irrelevant.
We're talking about losses now during this labour dispute.

And last time I checked Canada Post was a Crown Corporation - that doesn't make it a "private organization" in my books.



> What do you know about the average time to negotiate anything let alone the normal time to conclude negotiations for collective agreements?


More than you think although I was never involved with Canada Post or their negotiations.
But when a contract expires on Dec. 31st, people, Union and Management, don't wake up on January 1st saying - Oh my God, our contract expired, we better do something.
Negotiations always start well before the end of the current contract. The intent is to have a new contract in place before the old one expires not think about it after the existing one expires.
I haven't researched when the Union and Canada Post actually started negotiating a replacement for the current contract but if it wasn't at least a year ago there is another major problem with their process that needs to be addressed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

krs said:


> And last time I checked Canada Post was a Crown Corporation - that doesn't make it a "private organization" in my books.


The only thing that making it a Crown Corporation did was to force CP to balance its books without relying on general revenue to bail it out. 

If I were any member of CUPW I would be kissing the ground that CP managers walk on for keeping this corporation in reasonable fiscal shape despite a shocking decline in usage of the postal service. In any other privately owned business, there would have been massive layoffs staring a decade ago.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> *The only thing that making it a Crown Corporation did was to force CP to balance its books without relying on general revenue to bail it out. *
> 
> If I were any member of CUPW I would be kissing the ground that CP managers walk on for keeping this corporation in reasonable fiscal shape despite a shocking decline in usage of the postal service. In any other privately owned business, there would have been massive layoffs staring a decade ago.


Not quite accurate MF because if the government deemed it necessary they could via a public appropriation in fact lend/give the money to the Corporation to keep it running despite a debt/deficit position.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Not quite accurate MF because if the government deemed it necessary they could via a public appropriation in fact lend/give the money to the Corporation to keep it running despite a debt/deficit position.



I see. Thanks for correcting me on that.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I see. Thanks for correcting me on that.


No worries, just part of my day job to know this stuff.  It would be an unusual situation as Crown Corps are supposed to be self sustaining and it is part of their mandate to be so but it could happen in extraordinary circumstances.

I would say if it ever did happen that the government had to bail out CPC to keep them solvent, especially if a Con gov were in power, it would be the first step toward the privatization of CPC...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

krs said:


> I never said anything about past history. That's irrelevant.
> We're talking about losses now during this labour dispute.
> 
> And last time I checked Canada Post was a Crown Corporation - that doesn't make it a "private organization" in my books.


 A Crown Corporation, according to Steve, Lisa and the rest of the Conservative Government, is a "private organization." But who you gonn'a believe?



krs said:


> More than you think although I was never involved with Canada Post or their negotiations.
> But when a contract expires on Dec. 31st, people, Union and Management, don't wake up on January 1st saying - Oh my God, our contract expired, we better do something.
> Negotiations always start well before the end of the current contract. The intent is to have a new contract in place before the old one expires not think about it after the existing one expires.
> I haven't researched when the Union and Canada Post actually started negotiating a replacement for the current contract but if it wasn't at least a year ago there is another major problem with their process that needs to be addressed.


Well a little simple math ought to do it. The negotiations broke down after 8 months. So were looking at late October or early November. My understanding is the last contract ended January 31, 2011, but I haven't researched that, so I stand to be corrected.

I would say for the difficult subject matter discussed, during the negotiations, the parties were fairly efficient in their deliberations. The discussions aside, the larger political issues of a minority government and the call of the election and its results, might influence how agreeable or disagreeable either of the parties might be at any point during the talks.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Canada Post is *NOT* a private organization. It is a Crown Corp and as such is effectively owned by the government i.e., the people of Canada... "Where do you get your information?"


Well if I own a piece of it how come I can't just put my stamps on when I want? 

Who was that guy that posted on this board, from time to time, to explain that Canadians don't really own anything in this country?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Well if I own a piece of it how come I can't just put my stamps on when I want?


For the same reason that owning a piece of Apple Corporation (via stock) doesn't mean you can pay whatever you feel like for your iPhone.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> I would say for the difficult subject matter discussed, during the negotiations, the parties were fairly efficient in their deliberations. The discussions aside, the larger political issues of a minority government and the call of the election and its results, might influence how agreeable or disagreeable either of the parties might be at any point during the talks.


Efficient enough for a union supporter, perhaps. Not good enough for real life.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> A Crown Corporation, according to Steve, Lisa and the rest of the Conservative Government, is a "private organization." But who you gonn'a believe?


I think you must have misunderstood whatever "Steve" and "Lisa" were saying... and the rest of the Conservative Government.. ??? yeah 'cause that is what they _all _said.... 



BigDL said:


> *Well if I own a piece of it how come I can't just put my stamps on when I want? *
> 
> *Who was that guy *that posted on this board, from time to time, to explain that Canadians don't really own anything in this country?


Now there is a really brilliant comment... if I own shares in Apple Corp do I get to tell Steve Jobs what to do or a discount on their products? ... Why not keep things real and relevant instead of ridiculous flights of fancy... such comments only serve to diminish your arguments.

I can't help you with that only the facts.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> ...The discussions aside, the larger political issues of a minority government and the call of the election and its results, might influence how agreeable or disagreeable either of the parties might be at any point during the talks.


Up until strike action begins the government has *nothing* to do with negotiations.. that is between CPC management and CUPW reps... and then it is only a matter of if they decide to introduce back to work legislation or not. 

Now the nature of that legislation will undoubtedly be different depending on whether it is a minority or majority government and this would be the case regardless of which party was in power. 

How smart was CUPW to begin strike action with a majority Conservative government in place.... what did they expect or what were they thinking... were they thinking??? I think they weren't thinking. Everyone knows they are one of the most if not the most militant unions around and they were going to do what they were going to do come hell or high water.... They have no one to blame for the outcome of this other than their own arrogance.... or stupidity... you choose which is the least pejorative appellation. 

I thought you were once a union negotiator or some such... maybe I am mistaken but I thought you had mentioned something like that in the past... so I thought you would know better. Must be my mistaken memory/notion.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> I thought you were once a union negotiator or some such... maybe I am mistaken but I thought you had mentioned something like that in the past... so I thought you would know better. Must be my mistaken memory/notion.


This could be possible as union negotiators can develop selective amnesia at negotiation time.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Over and out for me on this thread - this discussion has become a waste of time.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

krs said:


> Over and out for me on this thread - this discussion has become a waste of time.


Don't walk away from the table, krs! Visit on a rotating basis!


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

:d:d:d

Smilies no longer work on ehMac???


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

krs said:


> :d:d:d
> 
> Smilies no longer work on ehMac???


:clap::heybaby::lmao:


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

:d

Weird,

I click on post reply,then on the smilie in the right box
I get the colon capital D but when I post it changes to a colon small d.

But that happens only for the first "d"

Try it without any text ahead of it , just select the smilie, nothing else.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Been doing a bit of poking around on wiki... apparently, the lockout is the 20th work stoppage in the union's 46 year history with Canada Post. (Haven't been able to verify elsewhere, as every source uses the same wording.)

This speaks of a very dysfunctional relationship between union and management...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Been doing a bit of poking around on wiki... apparently, the lockout is the 20th work stoppage in the union's 46 year history with Canada Post. (Haven't been able to verify elsewhere, as every source uses the same wording.)
> 
> This speaks of a very dysfunctional relationship between union and management...


Reminds me of the annual beer strikes in Alberta back in the early 80's. If I wouldn't have lived 15 minutes from Montana, they would have been hell...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Been doing a bit of poking around on wiki... apparently, the lockout is the 20th work stoppage in the union's 46 year history with Canada Post. (Haven't been able to verify elsewhere, as every source uses the same wording.)
> 
> *This speaks of a very dysfunctional relationship between union and management*...


Yep... as I said very early on in this thread, when I was working for the critic of PWGSC (back in the day when CPC were part of that department, now they fall under Transport) it was a common adage among both the government and the opposition that they "are a management and a union that deserve each other". i.e., they are both adversarial and simply want their way whether or not it serves the interests of Canadians at large.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Sonal said:


> You say this like this is a horrible thing.
> 
> I believe that job security for most people is an out-dated notion. I don't think it is realistic for anyone to expect to take on one job and hold it for life, with the exception of a few highly specialized roles. I believe the best thing for a workforce is to be adaptable and able to transfer skills and knowledge from role to role throughout a their working lives, to be able to shift careers as and when needed.
> 
> I'm not against the notion of a union per se, but I see no value in preserving jobs for *no reason other than to keep people from having to adapt to change*.


that's not the reason to support unions. I don't think any union ever chanted "keep people from having to adapt to change!"

The idea is to pay workers a fair wage compared to the profits generated. I'm sure there are many examples of Unions over reaching on this, but i would argue that those examples *PALE* in comparison to examples of corporations exploiting workers.

This was touched upon in the "poverty" thread. the truth is the middle class is shrinking. Stats Canada has backed this up. Unions are a tool to keep the middle class strong and able to be viable consumers to help out the economy as a whole. 10 middle class families will buy more stuff and contribute to the economy more than 1 rich family.

Canada is not the U.S. (yet), but all signs point to that being the road we're taking. Harper's Conservative policies mimic Republican policies.

This essay is specific to the U.S., but i feel the gist of it points to where we'll be if we keep on going down this road :

Robert Reich (Why the Republican War on Workers' Rights Undermines the American Economy)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> The idea is to pay workers a fair wage compared to the profits generated.


Why should wages be tied to profits? The workers are doing work for hire, not buying shares in the company.



i-rui said:


> Unions are a tool to keep the middle class strong and able to be viable consumers to help out the economy as a whole. 10 middle class families will buy more stuff and contribute to the economy more than 1 rich family.


Unions are a tool to promote union wages while having others--taxpayers and consumers--support their elevated lifestyle. If everybody were unionized then we might have a large uni-class, but not a middle class.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Why should wages be tied to profits? The workers are doing work for hire, not buying shares in the company.
> 
> 
> 
> Unions are a tool to promote union wages while having others--*taxpayers and consumers--support their elevated lifestyle.* If everybody were unionized then we might have a large uni-class, but not a middle class.


How would that be if Canada post is profitable?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> Been doing a bit of poking around on wiki... apparently, the lockout is the 20th work stoppage in the union's 46 year history with Canada Post. (Haven't been able to verify elsewhere, as every source uses the same wording.)
> 
> This speaks of a very dysfunctional relationship between union and management...


Yep, CUPW exists to strike. Always has, always will. Until of course they like most unions, eventually die as all surely will as they continue to p!ss off the public by attempting every other year or so to line their own pockets for no extra effort.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> How would that be if Canada post is profitable?


Canada Post is profitable only because it has a government-legislated advantage over potential competition.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Canada Post is profitable only because it has a government-legislated advantage over potential competition.


you didn't answer the question.

How do tax payers foot the bill of their "elevated lifestyles" if Canada Post is profitable?

And I don't know that as far as delivering a mail item in your mailbox that it gets much cheaper than what it has been. As far as all the other delivery services? Well there's plenty, of competition out there.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> you didn't answer the question.
> 
> How do tax payers foot the bill of their "elevated lifestyles" if Canada Post is profitable


Through the price of stamps. It wouldn't matter if Canada Post were profitable or unprofitable. The wage component of the stamps is still part of the price they pay. 




groovetube said:


> And I don't know that as far as delivering a mail item in your mailbox that it gets much cheaper than what it has been.


The price of stamps has risen above the rate of inflation for a century.



groovetube said:


> As far as all the other delivery services? Well there's plenty, of competition out there.


There is no effective competition for lettermail, due to legislation.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Don't walk away from the table, krs! Visit on a rotating basis!


Very witty comment. Where's that dang like feature.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Through the price of stamps. It wouldn't matter if Canada Post were profitable or unprofitable. The wage component of the stamps is still part of the price they pay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


what?

No, you said taxpayers support their elevated lifestyles. As any corporation will set their prices to what the market will bear, I want to know how you figure tax dollars are being used to support their elevated lifestyles.

And you can have delivered whatever you want to any address by quite a few companies.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> you didn't answer the question.
> 
> *How do tax payers foot the bill of their "elevated lifestyles" if Canada Post is profitable?*
> 
> And I don't know that as far as delivering a mail item in your mailbox that it gets much cheaper than what it has been. As far as all the other delivery services? Well there's plenty, of competition out there.


By the rates we pay and their special issue stamps for collectors and a multitude of other products CPC offers that have nothing to do with CUPW employees.... Yes the Corp is making money but there is only one buyer... the Canadian citizen (MF misstated by saying taxpyer). We all foot the bill and that CPC stays profitable in the era of e-mail and other electronic forms of communication has little to zero to do with CUPW and everything to do with management.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> By the rates we pay and their special issue stamps for collectors and a multitude of other products CPC offers that have nothing to do with CUPW employees.... Yes the Corp is making money but there is only one buyer... the Canadian citizen (MF misstated by saying taxpyer). We all foot the bill and that CPC stays profitable in the era of e-mail and other electronic forms of communication has little to zero to do with CUPW and everything to do with management.


bingo.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> bingo.


The taxpayer has transferred billions into Canada Post prior to its transformation into a Crown Corporation. The screwing over has largely been transferred to citizens over the past decade or so.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> bingo.


I think you could have made the font a little bigger gt... that isn't as large as it will go is it?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Why should wages be tied to profits? The workers are doing work for hire, not buying shares in the company.


as a company makes greater profits the workers that allow the company to prosper should share in the spoils. i also feel that if a company is in trouble the workers should be willing to make concessions to help it survive. this is the idea of collective bargaining and negotiations. a partnership between employers and employees thats mutually beneficial.



Macfury said:


> The taxpayer has transferred billions into Canada Post prior to its transformation into a Crown Corporation. The screwing over has largely been transferred to citizens over the past decade or so.


i can say the same thing about virtually every major corporation in the country. they receive subsides, tax breaks & credits, and still see their tax rate drop. every canadian has paid a portion of their way.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> that's not the reason to support unions. I don't think any union ever chanted "keep people from having to adapt to change!"
> 
> The idea is to pay workers a fair wage compared to the profits generated. I'm sure there are many examples of Unions over reaching on this, but i would argue that those examples *PALE* in comparison to examples of corporations exploiting workers.


A union may not chant that, but recent examples seem to point to a desire to protect things that the average Canadian would see a considerable perk. How is it preventing exploitation to keep a privilege? 

And why on earth must a fair wage be coupled to the profits a company makes? A corporation in not a co-operative. Making money, even making a lot of money, is not necessarily exploitation. 

Am I to pay every contractor and superintendent a wage proportionate to the anticipated profits of every real estate venture I try? Does that mean if I fail spectacularly, I should be able to ask for the money back? That's just silly.



i-rui said:


> This was touched upon in the "poverty" thread. the truth is the middle class is shrinking. Stats Canada has backed this up. Unions are a tool to keep the middle class strong and able to be viable consumers to help out the economy as a whole. 10 middle class families will buy more stuff and contribute to the economy more than 1 rich family.


Oh? And the contributions of a single business add up to... what? Consumers are not just individual people. We buy tens of thousands of dollars of stuff for the business every month.



i-rui said:


> This essay is specific to the U.S., but i feel the gist of it points to where we'll be if we keep on going down this road :
> 
> Robert Reich (Why the Republican War on Workers' Rights Undermines the American Economy)


I read the essay, and (in all sincerity) it reads like a preaching to the choir kind of an essay. It points out one example where unions are shrinking and the people are doing badly, and it points out another example where unions are strong and people are doing why, but it doesn't explain the link. e.g., It's says that America's prosperity for some decades was largely due to labour unions, and then it fails to explain HOW and WHY that is.

If there's a link here, I'm genuinely interested in hearing it, but not if it comes out as a whole bunch of rhetoric. 

Incidentally, India has the world's fastest growing middle class, and I don't see the role of the union factoring heavily into the growth of that economy. 

Look, I am not anti-union per se; I think collective bargaining has done a lot good for the average Canadian in the past. I think the collective bargaining process is a valuable tool that should be employed when needed. And you can check all my past posts on the political threads--I've never voted Conservative in my life, and I tend to be somewhat left-leaning in my politics. 

But all that aside, I cannot think of a strike that occurred in recent years that seemed justified as a protection against exploitation, instead of a protection of privilege.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> as a company makes greater profits the workers that allow the company to prosper should share in the spoils. i also feel that if a company is in trouble the workers should be willing to make concessions to help it survive. this is the idea of collective bargaining and negotiations. a partnership between employers and employees thats mutually beneficial.


The workers are rarely--if ever--the reason for a company's success. In most cases, the workers are easily replaced. If the workers are particularly valuable, the company will choose to offer more compensation to keep them there.




i-rui said:


> i can say the same thing about virtually every major corporation in the country. they receive subsides, tax breaks & credits, ad still see their tax rate drop. every canadian has paid a portion of their way.


I'm on record as opposing all of these, except for straight deductions of costs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> I read the essay, and (in all sincerity) it reads like a preaching to the choir kind of an essay. It points out one example where unions are shrinking and the people are doing badly, and it points out another example where unions are strong and people are doing why, but it doesn't explain the link. e.g., It's says that America's prosperity for some decades was largely due to labour unions, and then it fails to explain HOW and WHY that is.


Reich is a known leftist ideologue who can't think his way out of a paper sack:



> The American economy can’t get out of neutral until American workers have more money in their pockets to buy what they produce. And unions are the best way to give them the bargaining power to get better pay.


_Hey, why not take that money out of the pockets of consumers and taxpayers, and inflate the wages of union workers who will spend it, thus stimulating the economy? _

Uh, why not let the people who have the money now use it to stimulate the economy?

My theory: the unions were tolerated as a cost of doing business when business was booming. The unions did not create the wealth, they were merely able to take advantage of it.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Reich is a known leftist ideologue who cn't think his way out of a paper sack:


he was part of Clinton's economic team that saw them balance an out of control budget and bring it to surplus, while also enjoying some of the biggest economic growth the country had ever seen. i think he may be qualified.




Macfury said:


> Uh, why not let the people who have the money now use it to stimulate the economy?


lol. they've been trying that ever since Clinton left office. guess what? the rich sit on their money, or invest in foreign markets, meanwhile the US economy continues to get worse and worse and worse. That game plan doesn't work.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Up until strike action begins the government has *nothing* to do with negotiations.. that is between CPC management and CUPW reps... and then it is only a matter of if they decide to introduce back to work legislation or not.
> 
> Now the nature of that legislation will undoubtedly be different depending on whether it is a minority or majority government and this would be the case regardless of which party was in power.
> 
> ...


Since you asked I was. 

I worked for the CN Railway and was elected to serve on the committee that successfully bargained, without any job actions, in two rounds of negotiations for three different collective agreements in the federal sector. 

Also (from the above mentioned election) leading negotiations of units with three different employers and three different collective agreements, outside of the railway industry, in New Brunswick under provincial jurisdiction. 

All of these collective agreement were successfully negotiated without stoppage of work and all were first time agreements.

With regard to this thread early on I suggested the following with no more information than that the media provides.

Post #12) My entry into this conversation. Well low and behold who is the first person to raise the eventual reality of Canada Post *locking out its employees.*



BigDL said:


> Why is it no one is concerned about a Canada Post lock-out?
> 
> It is just as likely as a strike and may be preferred by management to show the Union in a bad light.
> 
> I was locked out on occasion when the Union had no intention of going on a general strike.



Post #62) I address a question asked by the OP MCB I also gave my view of where things were headed. Also the likely time line for events. 




> MazterCBlazter said:
> 
> 
> > Will there be a strike or not?
> ...


My view is CUPW and its members were well aware, the fates would not be kind to them, they were aware late on May 2nd or early May 3rd, depending on the time zone, with the election of a majority Conservative Government.

When I first read this thread I'd thought the Union's bargaining position was pretty much "phougked" because of the results on election day.

I would think; the Union based its strategy on were going to get hammered, brace for the blow, stand tall, unbending and unbowed. 

What was the Union's actual strategy, I have no knowledge.

So dear viewer I will turn to you and ask you this question; when a situation is un-winnable and untenable is it better to be a victim or martyr.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> he was part of Clinton's economic team that saw them balance an out of control budget and bring it to surplus, while also enjoying some of the biggest economic growth the country had ever seen. i think he may be qualified.


Great. So could you please point me to the "for dummies" explanation of his conclusions so that I may learn? Because I read the essay, and it leaves open a lot of questions as to how and why, and I genuinely would like to know.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Post #12) My entry into this conversation. Well low and behold who is the first person to raise the eventual reality of Canada Post *locking out its employees.*


My belief, as I have stated, is that this was a bad move on management's part, at least from a public relations standpoint. The general public was not in favour of the union when the strike began, and then the perception went from the union being whiny but at least willing to work with the public to management being a bunch of bullies.

This, in my view, did not so much improve the view of the union by comparison to management, but rather, showed that they all kind of suck.



BigDL said:


> So dear viewer I will turn to you and ask you this question; when a situation is un-winnable and untenable is it better to be a victim or martyr.


In this situation? Victim.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Great. So could you please point me to the "for dummies" explanation of his conclusions so that I may learn? Because I read the essay, and it leaves open a lot of questions as to how and why, and I genuinely would like to know.


well, he is specifically talking about the U.S. so it's not totally applicable to Canada, but i guess this article goes into it a bit more:

The union way up - latimes.com

beyond that i guess you could buy one of his books if you were so inclined to know more


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> well, he is specifically talking about the U.S. so it's not totally applicable to Canada, but i guess this article goes into it a bit more:
> 
> The union way up - latimes.com
> 
> beyond that i guess you could buy one of his books if you were so inclined to know more


Taxes were much lower 50 years ago and the government was much smaller. The consumer class had lots of spending power because it kept most of its money, instead of giving half to government. Businesses were not so heavily regulated and the savings were passed to consumers. It had nothing to do with unionism.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yeah those businesses could do whatever they wanted.

It was great for consumers. Ah the old days.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The taxpayer has transferred billions into Canada Post prior to its transformation into a Crown Corporation. The screwing over has largely been transferred to citizens over the past decade or so.


more blanket statements without any qualifications from macfury.

Your trademark.

Keep trying to skirt around your erroneous statements.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> well, he is specifically talking about the U.S. so it's not totally applicable to Canada, but i guess this article goes into it a bit more:
> 
> The union way up - latimes.com
> 
> beyond that i guess you could buy one of his books if you were so inclined to know more


I save my non-fiction reading for the Internet.  But thank you for the article--it is somewhat better, though it's still written for an audience that already largely agrees, rather than one who is willing to be convinced. Still, I wiki'd up the person himself, and I agree with a number of his stances and initiatives... though wiki doesn't get into his union views in depth either.

Also did some digging, and it seems that unions in Germany operate somewhat differently than they do here in North America... in which case, it's hardly a fair comparison to say that we need more unions here because they work in Germany, unless you are talking about German-style unions....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> more blanket statements without any qualifications from macfury.
> 
> Your trademark.
> 
> Keep trying to skirt around your erroneous statements.


I admitted to being wrong about the current situation. The taxpayer may be on the hook for CP at some point, but it apparently has not been recently.

Give it six months.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Also did some digging, and it seems that unions in Germany operate somewhat differently than they do here in North America... in which case, it's hardly a fair comparison to say that we need more unions here because they work in Germany, unless you are talking about German-style unions....


And, as I noted earlier, German union membership is in rapid decline.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

maybe they should work more like the american ones then.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I looked at the 2009 Canada Post Annual Report. It essentially remained profitable that year by reducing future employee benefits, slashing hours, and other cost containment measures. It also borrows as much as $500 million from the taxpayers of Canada to meet its liquidity targets.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I looked at the 2009 Canada Post Annual Report. It essentially remained profitable that year by reducing future employee benefits, slashing hours, and other cost containment measures. It also borrows as much as $500 million from the taxpayers of Canada to meet its liquidity targets.


seems like you found half the story.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Backroom talks came close to ending postal standoff*



> Backroom negotiations aimed at getting Canada Post workers back on the job produced at least two separate deals that came close to ending the political filibuster on Parliament Hill and the labour stoppage, the Star has learned.
> 
> But the deals fell through — including an apparent agreement between Canada Post and its workers — and insiders are pointing the finger at the Prime Minister’s Office as the reason.
> 
> New Democrats have accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of taking a hard line in the Canada Post dispute to send a signal to other public sector unions as he girds for federal belt-tightening.


(The Toronto Star)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

More speculation. Nice try to deflect the blame for this fiasco to the Prime Minister.

"Yeah, we wuz gonna sign a deal, but , but, but..."


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

More Conservafacts! Nice!


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

> Backroom negotiations aimed at getting Canada Post workers back on the job produced at least two separate deals that came close to ending the political filibuster on Parliament Hill and the labour stoppage,


We always said "Close only counts in horse-shoes"

That certainly applies here.

None of that changes the facts that these negotiations had already been going on for at least eight months without a resolution.
That's really the issue, not speculation what might or might not have happened in tha last two weeks.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> We always said "Close only counts in horse-shoes"
> 
> That certainly applies here.
> 
> ...


Yeah some people around here like to cherry pick the quotes from a story to support their biases regardless of what the rest of the story says... even the Star presented a balanced reporting... not true of some of the "analysts" here for whom everything is painted in terms of black and white instead of shades of grey.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

There were three people sitting at a table, a CEO, a union member and a regular schmo.
There was a plate in front of them with a dozen cookies on it.
The CEO took 11 cookies. Then he turned to the regular schmo and said, "Hey! That union guy is trying to take your cookie!"


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

arminia said:


> There were three people sitting at a table, a CEO, a union member and a regular schmo.
> There was a plate in front of them with a dozen cookies on it.
> The CEO took 11 cookies. Then he turned to the regular schmo and said, "Hey! That union guy is trying to take your cookie!"



No. The union member had stopped baking cookies on a regular basis. Finally, the boss told the regular schmo that he needed to get the union people back into the bakery full time or not at all, so he locked them out of the kitchen until they stopped acting like entitled children.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

arminia said:


> There were three people sitting at a table, a CEO, a union member and a regular schmo.
> There was a plate in front of them with a dozen cookies on it.
> The CEO took 11 cookies. Then he turned to the regular schmo and said, "Hey! That union guy is trying to take your cookie!"





Macfury said:


> No. The union member had stopped baking cookies on a regular basis. Finally, the boss told the regular schmo that he needed to get the union people back into the bakery full time or not at all, so he locked them out of the kitchen until they stopped acting like entitled children.





screature said:


> Yeah some people around here like to cherry pick the quotes from a story to support their biases regardless of what the rest of the story says... even the Star presented a balanced reporting... not true of some of the "analysts" here for whom everything is painted in terms of black and white instead of shades of grey.


Yeah seems to be a lot of that going around, maybe more than enough for some.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Glad to see the mail moving again.. I wonder if we 'businesses' of Canada have any charter of rights to litigate because our mail was held hostage?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> Glad to see the mail moving again.. I wonder if we 'businesses' of Canada have any charter of rights to litigate because our mail was held hostage?


The mail is moving slowwlllllllly. Looks like a little work-to-rule going on here.

Interesting to watch CUPW members slowly digging their own graves.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The mail is moving slowwlllllllly. Looks like a little work-to-rule going on here.
> 
> Interesting to watch CUPW members slowly digging their own graves.


Things are moving quite quickly here in St.John's. My letter carrier told me he is glad to be back on the job ........... and I have never seen so many bills come in all at once.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Perhaps it just an age thing. My father told me in my 20's that I would find time seems to speed as I would age. I find his comments coming true. He said I would rush to the end of my life as he found he was (sadly did) God rest his soul.

The perception of time for you Dr. G. quickly and MF perceives things moving slowly, though time, supposedly, a constant is traveling at the same speed.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The mail is moving slowwlllllllly. Looks like a little work-to-rule going on here.


The Visa bill came fast, but the cheques from Toronto Community Housing are just trickling in slowly....


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The mail is moving slowwlllllllly. Looks like a little work-to-rule going on here.
> 
> Interesting to watch CUPW members slowly digging their own graves.


Third day of supposed delivery. So far, only flyers.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Third day of supposed delivery. So far, only flyers.


Interesting. I have not received a single flyer. Trade you some flyers for some bills ............ let's see .......... how about the one for $12,982.72 from Holt Renfrew? Or the one from Visa (final notice) for $54,098.14? I'll take the Canadian Tire one for $3.08 ............. but the MasterCard bill for $31,903.83 is just about past due ........ so you could have that one if you want to trade. Not sure how the American Express got up to $120,073.02, but that's the last time I get a credit card that gives you a free airline ticket to New Zealand.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

arminia said:


> There were three people sitting at a table, a CEO, a union member and a regular schmo.
> There was a plate in front of them with a dozen cookies on it.
> The CEO took 11 cookies. Then he turned to the regular schmo and said, "Hey! That union guy is trying to take your cookie!"


*like*




Macfury said:


> The mail is moving slowwlllllllly. Looks like a little work-to-rule going on here.
> 
> Interesting to watch CUPW members slowly digging their own graves.


it might help if Canada Post was willing to pay overtime to deal with the backlog.... but they're not.

but of course since they were the ones who stopped the mail, why should anyone expect them to do everything necessary to get it back to speed?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

We've received our ballots for the HST referendum and the local newpaper, which comes in the mailbox (bulk delivery) every Thursday. Nothing else though.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

All of my letters which I knew were stuck in the system due to the strike were delivered on Tuesday.
No slow down there at all, delivery happened faster than I expected.

I bet you a lot of mail people expect didn't even enter the system.
I had some items ordered from overseas and got an email notice about 10 days ago that the foreign post office would not accept mail destined for Canada.
That ban was lifted last Tuesday.

Doesn't sound to me as if there is any substantial back log in the system.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Since they returned to work, I've received my plate renewal, a pamphlet for a cemetery plot, our Rogers bill and a notification that my wife has won huge in the Spanish Lottery which was mailed on 13/6 from Espana. 

In the mean time, I still have not received a package and some other government documents which should have been in the system for a while.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

I've received only what was probably already in the mail bags when they had the lockout, lots of stuff still in limbo. My wife has a package coming up from the US and she got the notification that it had cleared customs yesterday. It sat "in" customs for the duration of the lockout (and in fact was in there for 4-5 working days before the lockout). My package from Hong Kong is nowhere to be found, although it should have arrived before the lockout.

It seems like there will be a big pileup as they catch up with things and it also seems that mail just became a lot less reliable. I know I'm not going to trust it for anything sensitive or requiring timely delivery again.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mguertin said:


> It seems like there will be a big pileup as they catch up with things and it also seems that mail just became a lot less reliable. I know I'm not going to trust it for anything sensitive or requiring timely delivery again.


The greedy folk heading up CUPW have shot themselves in the foot big time. Both Canada Post and the workers will suffer through an accelerated decline in mail volume as a result of this strike. 

Anyone who was dubious about direct deposit for cheques will no doubt no longer rely on Canada Post either.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The greedy folk heading up CUPW have shot themselves in the foot big time. Both Canada Post and the workers will suffer through an accelerated decline in mail volume as a result of this strike.
> 
> Anyone who was dubious about direct deposit for cheques will no doubt no longer rely on Canada Post either.


I know I found alternative means to collect and pay bills during the strike, and some of those alternative means will be permanent for regularly recurring items ... Canada Post is still cheaper and more convenient for non-recurring type invoices and receivables, but the wave of the future has been accelerated.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Must be from yesterday's delivery, but...

Today, one flyer with expiry date of June 25, cable bill, credit card bill.

This strike so needed to happen. (nail, meet coffin...)


----------

