Postal workers will fight back-to-work bill

CUPW representative says mail delivery will resume in the meantime

After meeting in Ottawa on Tuesday, the union representing Canada Post workers decided to take legal action against the back-to-work bill. CUPW Montreal representative Alain Duguay argues the legislation would force them to resume their jobs at even lower wages than the ones offered in Canada Post’s previous offer. The union may also file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, arguing that the bill’s revised pension plans are discriminatory because new employees are refused the same benefits as older ones. Duguay says the workers will not break the law, and mail delivery will resume while the union fights the bill.

The Globe and Mail




Browse

Postal workers will fight back-to-work bill

  1. I cannot believe with the economy on recovery.countries like Greece in great financial difficulty from greedy unions demanding more. The Postal union has the world by the tail compared to those who work in the private sector.My advice to the government keep them in court for years on appeals.They have no friends in the voting public and the days of unions demanding that the young family man at minimum wage should be paying for these shysters to retire at 55,great sick and holiday benefits and  perfect working conditions for many.Close it down or sell it to the private sector.I see posties wondering the streets in scruffy uniforms,shoe not shined,hair below their collars .Make this a para military service,No strikes ,No overtime and their are plenty out there who will grab at the chance.

  2. “CUPW Montreal representative Alain Duguay argues the legislation would
    force them to resume their jobs at even lower wages than the ones
    offered in Canada Post’s previous offer.” – Duh! He is going to argue that? – It is a fact. lol

    “The union may also file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission,
    arguing that the bill’s revised pension plans are discriminatory because
    new employees are refused the same benefits as older ones” Translation – it is against human rights to give less in benefits. The benefits must continue to go up, or else you are trampling on someones human rights.

    These people are truly out of touch.

    • If it is discriminatory for certain members of unions to have more beneficial deals than other members under the Human Rights Commission, I know some union executives who would be guilty of discrimination.   The contract negotiated  several years ago by United Nurses of Alberta gave a much better deal to nurses with 15 years seniority as apposed to the new nurses starting out and the union executive who coincedentally all had 15+ years of service brokered the deal to the detriment of the younger members.

      • The point I was making is that it is not discriminatory.

        For the most part, I have agreed with what you have written, except for this post. Anytime a fundamental change has to be made to a union agreement, I would submit it is the most fair thing to do – to allow the ‘grandfathering’ of some benefits. You claim that the deal that was brokered was done to ‘the detriment’ of the younger members, but most deals are done this way. The older members have been there long enough to be able to ‘expect’ that what they had been promised them stay. If the changes were made across the board, it would have been unfair to the senior members.

        Sucks, but it is life. I was on the short end of one of those deals once, but ‘seniority rules’ when the union is involved.

        • Actually I was just trying to say that “if it is discriminatory then unions themselves would be guilty of it.”
          I don’t think it is discriminatory myself however, I don’t think it is smart for unions to make deals that benefit the old timers over the youth, especially in a field that has a global shortage, like nursing.  We had a benchmark strike in 1988.  The oldtimers didn’t sell out the youth then but those youth are now older and have no interest in making sure that the profession flourishes.  We need young nurses to stay in the profession.  We need to mentor them.  Selling them short so we can make a few dollars more is detrimental to the success of both the profession and the union in the long term.

  3. Bad move Postal Union!

    • I truly think that they have absolutely no idea how the average Canadian thinks. They are used to having public support, and take for granted that they have it now.

      The times have changed.

      On a side note, I wonder if someone could calculate how much the filibuster ended up costing Canada.

      Money that was lost in the economy.
      Money that the CUPW employees never earned.
      Money that was spend in OT keeping the house going for the duration.
      All the others.

      Can we bill the NDP?

      • No they do not get it. Legally I do not know if they have a good argument, I sure hope no!

        I heard someone mention it was a couple of million dollars the filibuster but I am not sure, what a waste of money! And I am sure NDP is not to happy with the results of their silly game, he is pushing his luck!

  4. I always hate the animosity and division that comes with this type of topic. To me this is a very simple case of workers’ rights.

    The management/government (ie whoever is the boss) has incredible leverage when bargaining over wages, benefits etc. So to me it is only fair that the workers be able to organize and negotiate collectively to balance the scales. What is negotiated in good faith is fair, because both sides have to compromise in most cases.

    So naturally it really ticks me off that the government legislated the workers back to work at a reduced pay increase compared to the offers already on the table, when they were in fact locked out and not on strike. This was managment’s doing, not the workers.

    The workers were keeping the mail running. The negotiations were on-going.

    Then managment decided to lock the doors.

    If government was going to step in, it should’ve been to open the bloody doors, since the workers were ready to work while still negotiating.

    Instead, the government rewards the managment for their behavioiur and kicks the workers in the teeth.

    If that isn’t a form of union busting, I don’t know what is.

Sign in to comment.