Hey everyone. I got some time to do the latest update to the board software, but it meant that all the old modifications and styles wouldn't work anymore. So, here you have the newest iteration of LabourTalk. Please let me know by Private Message if you run into any issues with the new styling. Some new features on the board are:

  • Latest HTML5 Responsive Styling - You can now see a new, more modern styling on the board. Along with this, you can resize the browser to see the board change with it. The board is now functional on all sizes of screens, including your cell phone, table and desktop/laptop.
  • Post Sharing - Although you could previously, the new layout means the sharing icons are more visible on the lower right hand corner of each post. Click your favourite social media outlet to share the desired post with them.
  • Multiple Themes - Previously there was only one theme in an attempt to lower the workload when modifications were put in place. Fortunately, the new modification system is much simpler to implement and we now have multiple colour options for you to enjoy. You can change these from your User Control Panel under the Board Settings heading.
  • Announcements - Announcements can now be posted here (where you're seeing this one) and, in most cases, can be dismissed. To dismiss them, please click the "X" in the top right corner of this box.
  • Collapsing Categories - Categories, such as News & Announcements or Welcome (below), can be collapsed to clear up some of the clutter. This state should be maintained as long as you're logged in.

We hope you like the changes!

Some thoughts about our union...

This group moderates their own board. Notify them of any issues. Is job action the wisest choice? What is our objective ?

Moderator: Koot

User avatar
Bob_Loblaw
Rookie Poster
Rookie Poster
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 8:41 pm

Some thoughts about our union...

Postby Bob_Loblaw » Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:25 pm

Some of the points I had comments on:

The union declares that Telus has “bullied” TWU members with threats of disciplinary actions and firing, yet on their website (http://www.twu-canada.ca/home.shtml) they threaten fines, penalties and civil suits if you choose to cross the picket line, citing precedent of successfully retrieving funds from Union members.

The union is promoting that Telus subscribers change service providers and cancel services in a effort to “hurt” Telus when in fact any actions done to reduce the amount of users or revenues from Telus will eventually result in a loss of jobs, which is contradictory to the reasons the Union is picketing.

The Union is complaining about Telus unilaterally imposing a contract on the TWU members while the union is dictating picket action to the membership without a vote.

Rather than build moral support of the membership, the union is “policing” their membership in an effort to ensure compliance to picketing by making member sign in on one sheet and sign out on another every 4 hours. If sheets are not signed correctly, funds will not be paid and the onus is on the member to “prove” he picketed. The feeling here is that the does not trust its’ membership to diligently fulfill their duties.

Feedback and information regarding the labour dispute is not readily available to the membership and question regularly go unanswered as there is a high level of disorganization within the union. Rumors are rampant and confusion seems to be the theme of any picket line.

The union promotes the application for EI, yet has no idea if applicants are actually eligible, requesting information from members, as opposed to researching the facts before hand.

Rather than focus on the present situation, the Union felt the need to pursue litigation and mudslinging on the “Telus Idol” video. This takes funds away from their “Warchest” and does nothing to promote an avenue for negotiations

I wish our union was more on top of the facts and getting them to the membership... I am open to all comments to these topics. I would love to hear both pro and con as I only want to educate myself here!

Cheers.



User avatar
polecat
Rookie Poster
Rookie Poster
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:50 am

Postby polecat » Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:36 pm

You know it is about time that the union realize that we are not a bunch of sheep waiting for them to lead us to greener pastures and that we should all have a chance at our say without being threatened.

I am not against our union in anyway...but until they have a concrete plan in place...other than "were settling in for a long one"..how can I put my trust into them? :?: :?: :?:



a4abet

Postby a4abet » Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:07 pm

What do you mean greener pasteurs you mean over the cliff don't you? anyone know the story of the Pied Piper? What are we going to do?I am forced on the picket line because they won't let me work yet they don't like me because I voice my opinion which is contrary to theirs. Every time I state I am puzzled as to why we are out on the sidewalk they give me a different reason. Well I already have figured out the real reason as much as they say it is about job security and keeping jobs in Canada it is really about money. The rest is just Union Rhetoric and BS, smoke and mirrors. As soon as TELUS gives them enough money they will say well we couldn't help it and there is no such thing as job security. They will sell out the very members they say they are fighting for. No matter what they telll you it is about the money and it always is about the money. Don't kdd yourself. I cannot believe how stupid they think their members are. and guess what most of them are they cannot think for themselves . They have been taken care of for too long and I have no idea how any of them will survive in the real world. That is where they are going to end up they honestly don't know how lucky they have it but they want to make an example of TELUS. We are supposed to take on the fight for the labour movement in BC and the world. I don't remember being asked to vote on that do you?



User avatar
Dpro
Rookie Poster
Rookie Poster
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:31 pm

Postby Dpro » Sat Sep 10, 2005 9:59 pm

I would think that if a person does not know or accept the position of either the union or the companies version of proposals, then now that we are locked out they should more then ever we should be demanding that it be put in the hands of an arbitrator for binding arbitration as originally recommend.

This way both parties will have to accept a compromise of proposals and not a forced one sided contract by either the company nor the union.



User avatar
Wwood
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:21 pm

Postby Wwood » Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:18 am

I would think that if a person does not know or accept the position of either the union or the companies version of proposals, then now that we are locked out they should more then ever we should be demanding that it be put in the hands of an arbitrator for binding arbitration as originally recommend.

This way both parties will have to accept a compromise of proposals and not a forced one sided contract by either the company nor the union.
Given the calls the union has made so far, I have no confidence that the union is finally making a right call be trying to force binding arbitration. Again they are shirking their responsibility because they refuse to bargain from the offer. This would mean a certain amount of capitulation for the union leaders and they would rather keep people on the street before they will admit they misjudged the situation and begin working from a completely acceptable offer. If the union thinks we should go to binding arbitration that is a strong enough reason for me to stay far away from it.



goatdancer
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:01 pm

Postby goatdancer » Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:52 pm

a4abet

Who are 'they'?

Wwood

"refuse to bargain from the offer" . You've beaten this one to death. Why does TELUS refuse to bargain anything, just impose?



User avatar
Wwood
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:21 pm

Postby Wwood » Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:00 pm

a4abet

Who are 'they'?

Wwood

"refuse to bargain from the offer" . You've beaten this one to death. Why does TELUS refuse to bargain anything, just impose?
Telus only imposed once it became clear the union did not want to hear the voice of its members. Once it was imposed the union heard the feet of its members. You should be asking yourself and the union why it did not want to hear the voice of it's members. Even the courtesy of the chance may have bought the union a ton of loyalty.


From a distance you look like my friend, even though we are at war.
From a distance I just cannot comprehend what all this fighting is for. Bette Midler

goatdancer
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:01 pm

Postby goatdancer » Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:19 pm

Wwood

TELUS imposed because they refused to deal with the bargaining committee. They just figured that they could ignore them and deal direct with individuals. The contract states that TELUS recognizes the TWU as the sole bargaining agent. Easy to miss that one.

One does not vote on an imposed contract. This whole premise has been discussed at great lengths in various threads already so lets not waste time here.



User avatar
JohnDoe
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 1147
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 6:11 am
Location: Vancouver, BC
Contact:

Postby JohnDoe » Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:28 pm

Wwood

TELUS imposed because they refused to deal with the bargaining committee. They just figured that they could ignore them and deal direct with individuals. The contract states that TELUS recognizes the TWU as the sole bargaining agent. Easy to miss that one.

One does not vote on an imposed contract. This whole premise has been discussed at great lengths in various threads already so lets not waste time here.
If the company had not passed it down to the employees, we would have been none the wiser when the union came back and told us that the company had not handed down a contract to negotiate with. Instead, the union was left scrambling as to why they couldn't negotiate with it. They came up with this and that about it not being acceptable because... (insert various reasons here)... then retired for the week wiping their brow for such a close call. Until the company came up with unilaterally putting the contract into effect. The rest is history. Perhaps the company was wrong for doing. Personally I'm glad they did. The union wasn't going to tell me what was happening, I'm glad the company did.


Have a great day everyone!

JohnDoe

User avatar
Wwood
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:21 pm

Postby Wwood » Thu Sep 29, 2005 9:24 pm

Wwood

TELUS imposed because they refused to deal with the bargaining committee. They just figured that they could ignore them and deal direct with individuals. The contract states that TELUS recognizes the TWU as the sole bargaining agent. Easy to miss that one.

One does not vote on an imposed contract. This whole premise has been discussed at great lengths in various threads already so lets not waste time here.
At the risk of wasting your time I will provide a response anyway.

You are right, the twu is the sole bargaining agent. That is until they abdicate that responsibility. Telus took the next legal step and presented the offer to the employees as the employees had a right to see it and make a decision themselves in the absence of any input from the union.
And make a decision they did.
Never lose sight of the fact that it was the twu that forced this contract to be imposed. They had a chance to vote it down prior to that. If it was voted on and voted down the company would have been comitting suicide if they implimented it. Chalk up yet another bad call by the union.


From a distance you look like my friend, even though we are at war.
From a distance I just cannot comprehend what all this fighting is for. Bette Midler

User avatar
polecat
Rookie Poster
Rookie Poster
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:50 am

Postby polecat » Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:07 am

somebody correct me if I am wrong. If we had voted on the contract and it was turned down? and Binding arbitration was offered? would that then now not be based on the Imposed contract because that was the last contract voted on?



User avatar
cragorn
Experienced Poster
Experienced Poster
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:41 am

Postby cragorn » Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:47 am

somebody correct me if I am wrong. If we had voted on the contract and it was turned down? and Binding arbitration was offered? would that then now not be based on the Imposed contract because that was the last contract voted on?
Yes......Which is why the TWU was so adament to not lessen the gap with a decent counter offer. They were counting on an arbitrator to split it down the middle. A lot of people don't understand why the TWU took that stance. At the time, it was fine however now knowing that binding arbitration will never occur, it's about time for them to fork over an offer.

Think of it like this when it comes to splitting something down the middle. You have a house for sale for $200k, I offer you $150. Middle ground is $175. Now let's take the same house and I offer you $190k. The middle ground is now $195.

If you are the buyer....You want $175 however if you are the seller, you want $195. And remember...it's the same house, for the same $200k yet you end up with way different answers when you widden the gap :lol:



jorver
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
Posts: 1729
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 7:18 pm

Postby jorver » Fri Sep 30, 2005 8:42 pm

crag...this can be done once that sentence is out of the offer....( direct result) The TWU has full intentions of bargaining and we have been warned we are loosing stuff...but those words need to be amended.



User avatar
Wwood
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:21 pm

Postby Wwood » Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:32 am

somebody correct me if I am wrong. If we had voted on the contract and it was turned down? and Binding arbitration was offered? would that then now not be based on the Imposed contract because that was the last contract voted on?
Yes......Which is why the TWU was so adament to not lessen the gap with a decent counter offer. They were counting on an arbitrator to split it down the middle. A lot of people don't understand why the TWU took that stance. At the time, it was fine however now knowing that binding arbitration will never occur, it's about time for them to fork over an offer.

Think of it like this when it comes to splitting something down the middle. You have a house for sale for $200k, I offer you $150. Middle ground is $175. Now let's take the same house and I offer you $190k. The middle ground is now $195.

If you are the buyer....You want $175 however if you are the seller, you want $195. And remember...it's the same house, for the same $200k yet you end up with way different answers when you widden the gap :lol:

IMHO this is totally wrong. Had the union began negotiations on the offer then I would agree with the analogy above. However there were no negotiations.
First, if the offer was voted on and rejected by the membership it would not be the basis for negotiation or binding arbitration. It would have been REJECTED, gone!
At that point the union would have had a clear case to forth their offer which would then have the ball back in the company's court and the onus on them to comeback with something more palatable than their first offer.
However none of this happened.
The union may have thought that binding arb was a possibility and that by voting on the offer would have made it the basis for arbitration. Well once again they were wrong. That mistake has had us out of work for over 2 months and counting while the business is almost back to normal without us.
Clearly because of us being out, the company has been able to drive tons of efficiencies into the business which may mean that some of us will not be coming back or will be forced to relocate in order to keep our jobs. Also we are in a horrible bargaining position which will most certainly result in considerable capitulation on the union’s initial position.

I hope the next time the union has an opportunity to make a business decision they do a whole lot more homework as to the possible ramifications so we do not pay the price for their lack of business acumen and foresight.


From a distance you look like my friend, even though we are at war.
From a distance I just cannot comprehend what all this fighting is for. Bette Midler

User avatar
Ash
Site Wannabe Administrator
Site Wannabe Administrator
Posts: 1604
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:11 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby Ash » Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:12 am

Or rather than voting on the offer specifically, why doesn't the union hold a vote to see if the membership wants to use the Telus offer as the "starting point" for further negotiations.


Ash

"Shop smart. Shop S-Mart."


Return to “Union Members for Democracy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests