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!

The New TA discussed

Add your links here. Could be caselaw or links to other orginizations.
User avatar
Admin1
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
Posts: 1585
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:06 am
Location: Some where in Canada.
Contact:

The New TA discussed

Postby Admin1 » Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:34 am

Now that everyone has had a bit of chance to read the TA lets see if we can discuss it so that we can help everyone understand it a bit more. You can refer to sections that ever one can look up. Type what you think they mean without totally disclosing the TA. Let's help each understand what it means and your thoughts on the sections. Don't post full sections as I am not sure what the ramifications are.



User avatar
Koot
Experienced Poster
Experienced Poster
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 10:18 am
Location: Prince George B.C.

Postby Koot » Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:31 pm

One thing, we already lost by staying out, instead of accepting the contract three months ago is the double pay for the first two hours of continuing overtime Thanks to all the eejits


And Carthage must be destroyed!

boob
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
Posts: 877
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 12:26 am

Postby boob » Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:52 pm

you are kidding me. I loved that



green1
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:14 pm
Location: Calgary Alberta
Contact:

Postby green1 » Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:43 pm

the union traded that for the lack of mandatory overtime (both of these are for clerical only, plant still has mandatory overtime and doubletime for all OT)
personally I think that was a bad choice on the union's part being that we've always had mandatory OT in alberta and since I started I have been subject to it ONCE (for all of an hour) meanwhile the time and a half vs doubletime thing affects me almost every week.

the other big one I have issues with is the lump sum used to go towards our pensions, and now it doesn't, and it didn't used to have dues taken out, and now it does....

so far I think this contract is worse (for me) than the proposal from April, but it's what the bargaining committee wants...



User avatar
LazyRedNose
Experienced Poster
Experienced Poster
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:54 am

Postby LazyRedNose » Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:13 pm

the union traded that for the lack of mandatory overtime (both of these are for clerical only, plant still has mandatory overtime and doubletime for all OT)
personally I think that was a bad choice on the union's part being that we've always had mandatory OT in alberta and since I started I have been subject to it ONCE (for all of an hour) meanwhile the time and a half vs doubletime thing affects me almost every week.

the other big one I have issues with is the lump sum used to go towards our pensions, and now it doesn't, and it didn't used to have dues taken out, and now it does....

so far I think this contract is worse (for me) than the proposal from April, but it's what the bargaining committee wants...
Agree, it seems to benefit the Union as an organization, not it's employees.



green1
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:14 pm
Location: Calgary Alberta
Contact:

Postby green1 » Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:15 pm

but that's what it's all about... what's best for the union... the employees were never considered...



alec
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
Posts: 878
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:47 pm
Location: Ottawa/Calgary/Kelowna

Postby alec » Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:25 pm

Yes green1

You are right. The extra $$$ are going to be required for the media campaign to win back the union members to the TWU.



JoePublic
Experienced Poster
Experienced Poster
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 7:36 pm

Postby JoePublic » Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:47 pm

the other big one I have issues with is the lump sum used to go towards our pensions, and now it doesn't, and it didn't used to have dues taken out, and now it does....

so far I think this contract is worse (for me) than the proposal from April, but it's what the bargaining committee wants...
Dues are not being taken off the lump sum....i thought i saw that too. I reread that part...

The lump sum payment will not be subject to:
• the provisions of Article 6 related to Dues Deductions



green1
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:14 pm
Location: Calgary Alberta
Contact:

Postby green1 » Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:34 pm

Memorandum of agreement- lump sum payment for 2001-2005
section "general", top paragraph they added a sentance at the end stating that dues would be deducted. they also deleted the second paragraph that stated that they would go towards pension.




Return to “Helpful Links”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests