| |
| NC |
 |
Site Administrator
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 2864
Location: Vancouver
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:49 pm Post subject: |
| |
I started posting on the IKEA site and, not too surprisingly, I am now branded a "union buster".
I just got back now and am trying to get to posting there again. I just get so mad about the crap they expect people to eat without question. Here's a run down of what has ahppened so far:
The exchange started with NC saying:
| Quote: | I am interested in contributing but am not an IKEA employee, can I post questions?
I am interested in seeing if you will allow me to ask questions other than those that suit the Teamsters. |
Teamsters 213 Response:
| Quote: | | Sure, I look forward to answering any questions you may have but I don't know why you would as you don't work for IKEA? |
NC said:
| Quote: | | You're off the mark with your "union busting" label and I think you should try to shed the typical union mindset that an opposing opinion is a "union-busting" opinion, it would help this site's credibility. LabourTalk is actually a chat website that encourages input from both sides of the union argument. We have had some great exchanges between union supporters and non-union supporters. You are talking about LabourWatch, we're not related to that site or LaborStart or anything else. We came from the Telus fight back in 2005. I have to get back to work but will post more when I am home this evening, looking forward to it. |
Teamsters 213 Response:
| Quote: | | Ok, I would just like to point out that unionizing is not an argument as suggested in your post, it’s a fundamental right that all workers have. The workers have the right to make a decent living with good working conditions with the support of a non-profit union like the Teamsters. I also looked at your website, and it’s clear from my point of view that it is an anti-union website. I am also curious why you would want to ask questions that clearly don't effect you as you don't work for IKEA. |
_________________
Find - Desiderata - read it |
|
| Back to top |
|
| NC |
|
Site Administrator
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 2864
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 8:36 pm Post subject: |
| |
I submitted one to the IKEA site that I doubt they will post:
| Quote: | I didn’t say “unionizing as an argument”, you “spun” that. (Dictionary.com tells us: Argument: “a discussion involving differing points of view; debate.”). My “both sides of the union argument” ties into your reply: by balancing your right to unionize with the BC Labour Code and Canadian Charter right to be union-free.
You seem to present Teamsters arguments suggesting unionization solves most everything. But, you did not present any of the other options. I’m not talking about “did you know you must pay union dues” or raising concerns about strikes. Blogging on LabourTalk and other websites for the last 5 years I no longer focus on those. It’s the hidden rules and false democracy stuff that really interests me. I get in these arguments all the time, it’s hobby. Why do we do this? If you have really studied our site you will know the answer. If you have an interest in my credibility come and see our site, I would be happy to tour anyone around the 30,000 plus posts to our site by both pro-
My First Question:
Can you tell me if the Collective Agreement you want for Coquitlam will include a membership “Security Clause” meaning that EVERY one has to join as a condition of employment? That is, if an IKEA employee breaks the Teamster’s constitution or bylaws, and loses their Membership the Teamsters can demand that IKEA fire the employee, and IKEA must comply?
There’s my first question: Would the Teamsters demand that, as a condition of employment at IKEA, everyone must remain a “member in good standing”?
Per your link, I see the Richmond one has such a clause:
3(c) All co-workers shall be required to be a member of the Union as a condition of employment with the Employer. Should any co-worker covered by the bargaining unit cease or refuse to become a member in good standing of the Union, the Employer shall, upon notification from the Union, discharge such co-worker.
By the way: Your answer about the when the employees could get rid of the union is wrong, check it out on the Labour Board website: decert window opens 10 months from the certification date. http://www.lrb.bc.ca/codeguide/chapter4.htm (about 3/4 of the way down the page “Decertification”). |
I am not hopeful that we will see that on their site. Fingers crossed though.
_________________
Find - Desiderata - read it |
|
| Back to top |
|
| JJ |
|
Rookie Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 49
Location: Oshawa, ON
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 8:45 pm Post subject: |
| |
I guess they fixed that decert thing because it says 10 months now, which is BC law right?
the fedex one has been going on for a long time, i have seen that site before. did you notice that they are telling the fedex employees and the ikea employees that they can decertify if they want to. they don't say anything about how the union will kick you out if you try that. will they fine them too? that would be worth knowing. i recall you guys all got fined by the TWU as well.
i remember that the ekati strike had bunch of threats about members in bad standing for picket line crossing.
bc allows security clauses to terminate employment too don't you? i notice they don't tell anybody about that.
*** (edited by NC for egregious punctuation errors - Gawd jj, get "caps" key *** |
|
| Back to top |
|
| green1 |
|
Veteran Poster
Joined: 10 Sep 2005
Posts: 1532
Location: Calgary Alberta
|
| Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 4:42 pm Post subject: |
| |
| I love the "non-profit" part... sure it's technically true... but any organization that can take in that much money without making a profit has even bigger issues! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| NC |
|
Site Administrator
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 2864
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 8:12 pm Post subject: |
| |
green, those are called "education and training" funds. I have heard that the UFCW uses them to buy cars and houses.
Lyle (Teamsters website "voice") omitted the post I copied above, but did post the one after that, thinking people will never realize it. I just posted another, my 3rd post to the site:
| Quote: | Let's try this again. You did not post my question but instead, called ma a Union Buster, they asked me a question. (see obfuscation, below) I will ask it again.
My question, which you edited out was: Will the Coquitlam collective agreement have this clause - (Copied here from the Richmond Collective Agreement)
Section 3 (c) All co-workers shall be required to be a member of the Union as a condition of employment with the Employer. Should any co-worker covered by the bargaining unit cease or refuse to become a member in good standing of the Union, the Employer shall, upon notification from the Union, discharge such co-worker.
I will answer YOUR question for you again, as I did in the post you censored. I run a chat forum called www.labourtalk.org, we have people, like the IKEA workers, who come and ask questions that unions will not answer, or if they answer they obfuscate, throw up smoke and skirt around. I would be DELIGHTED if you came and offered your opinions - I promise I will not censor YOUR postings.
I sent you an email Lyle, you did not respond, but I notice you fixed your email address I told you was wrong, you're welcome. |
_________________
Find - Desiderata - read it |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Choose Display Order |
|
| User Permissions |
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
