My name is Keith Murdoch and I have recently become an organizer for UFCW Canada. I just wanted to offer my assistance to anyone in Ontario who is interested in talking about getting a union in their workplace.

In Ontario, the law gives you and your co-workers the right to join the union of your choice. Your employer won’t like it but there is nothing he can do to stop you. UFCW Canada is a very large union and will protect your rights. It is taking on Wal-Mart, the world’s largest corporation, so taking on your employer will be no problem.

So what are you waiting for? Find out if a union works for you and your co-workers. All calls and emails are 100% confidential.

Please feel free to contact me at anytime at 416-675-1104 x276 or [email protected]

In Solidarity,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keith Murdoch:
Find out if a union works for you and your co-workers. All calls and emails are 100% confidential.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Why the hell doesn't this guy just get an ad instead of trying for freebes.

---

They have the money, they should pay for a spot here and show some real solidarity.

But thats no biggie, I did my duty and reported it to Audra and thats all I intend to do about it.
Taking the thread and making it a useful thread is a excellant idea.

How does one choose which union is best for your particular industry? I mean its a no brainer if its a auto parts plant so you choose CAW for example but what if you are a niche company with no clear and obvious line to a specific union?

edited to add
In the spirit of your previous post I often hear about fat cat union leaders with little connection to the workers they serve but they tend to be a minority and usually crash and burn fast enough. But I would be curious to see in general what the salaries are and is there any term limits to prevent 'dynasties or dictatorships from forming' ?

[ 08 June 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]

Regarding the six-figure thing, I'm not about to plead starvation salary, but I won't be seeing anything close to six figures - ever - in this job, and I work a lot of evenings and weekends, as well as spending a lot of time on the road. Admittedly I'm a rep, not an organizer (and therefore, unlike an organizer, I'm an employee of the union, not a member), but that does seem to tie into Robbie's point generally about "union brass".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:

How does one choose which union is best for your particular industry? I mean its a no brainer if its a auto parts plant so you choose CAW for example but what if you are a niche company with no clear and obvious line to a specific union?

---

IMO the answer is "research". Look to similar companies and check with your provincial Labour Relations Board to see if they're certified, and by which union. (As far as I know LRBs will provide you with that info - at least the Saskatchewan one will.) The CAW has units in a variety of fields that aren't auto plants, for instance. If nothing else, this research will tell you which unions have experience representing people in your field. The union I work for, for instance, pretty much restricts its new organizing to areas where we already have some expertise.

Of course there's also word of mouth. If you have friends in unionized workplaces who are happy with the service they get from their union, it doesn't hurt to call that union and see if they're willing to expand into your workplace/sector, even if they aren't already there. Worst they can do is say "no thanks".

quote:

---

But I would be curious to see in general what the salaries are and is there any term limits to prevent 'dynasties or dictatorships from forming' ?

---

quote:

---

If you have questions about my union I’ll try to answer them for you.

---

How do you feel about the UFCW suing UFCW reformers?

UFCW Leaving Las Vegas

notice of motion April 5, 2005

[ 08 June 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:

notice of motion April 5, 2005

---

Without addressing the respective merits of UFCW or UFCW "reformers", I'd like to point out that the notice of motion re: UFCW.Net is all about "passing off" - it's an intellectual property suit, in the same league as copyright or patent or trademark.

It would be the same if I had a website called www.rabble.org or www.rabble.com that was dedicated to exposing what I saw as problems with rabble.ca.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erstwhile:
Whether the suit will be successful or not, I don't know - I'm not an expert in intellectual property law by any stretch of the imagination - but it should be noted that the suit has nothing to do with the merits of the site.

---

quote:

---

but it should be noted that the suit has nothing to do with the merits of the site.

---

MFD Sued by 'Voice for Working America'

quote:

---

"The content posted on the MFD Website is critical of the union movement generally and of the UFCW and its affiliated locals, and their employees... Further, many of the postings on the MFD Website are defamatory of the UFCW and its affiliated locals, and their executive members and employees."

---

[ 10 July 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RP.:

So lawsuits are never, ever used to punish an adversary, are always about principle?

---

Well, lawyers are paragons of virtue, and the courts bastions of justice, 'tis true.

But, in all seriousness, that isn't what I said. What I said was - this lawsuit, legally speaking, has nothing to do with the merits of the site, and everything to do with identity theft.

I can't guarantee that if ufcw.net was a "rah! rah! UFCW!" cheerleading site the union would have brought a similar suit - but they might have, and would have been entitled to do so, in order to protect their public identity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erstwhile:
I have no doubt that the nature of ufcw.net was what attracted the union's attention to it. But if the site was named "www.membersfordemocracy.net" or somesuch there'd be no lawsuit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:
Originally posted by Erstwhile

MFD Sued by "Voice of Working America"

---

Sure, but I was referring to the Notice of Motion up on the website - and that is specifically about "passing off".

I suppose in my post I should have noted I wasn't addressing the first link, since frankly that one's substantially more muddled and, as per usual, both sides will try to paint themselves in the most positive light. I'm not privy to the facts - nor, I'm guessing, are you - so at this point all we have is the UFCW saying one thing, MfD saying another, and a judge is going to have to decide who's in the right.

I just felt that including the Notice of Motion in the "UFCW sues reformers!" blurb was inappropriate. A union, like any organization, is entitled to protect is intellectual property, and I don't see it in the same league as a defamation suit.

But that's just IMO, and I don't mean to induce thread drift. Lawsuits are as they are, and perhaps I'm being overly technical here, so I'll leave it be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RP.
..much as UFCW might want one. My point, and I'm not suggesting that you're not getting this, is I think the passing off is not their primary concern here, but it is a convenient means to an end.

---

Well, and that may be. Again, maybe I'm just looking at things too legalistically here.

EDIT: And again, to Keith and others - sorry 'bout the thread drift.

[ 08 June 2005: Message edited by: Erstwhile ]

Gosh, Keith and Erstwhile: you must be thinking that babble is the last bastion of union-bashing.

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

Anyway Keith its best just to post in a single topic area...otherwise as you've seen...some folks will get p.o.'ed.

I understand that UFCW has done quite a job recruiting new, younger organizers and I think that's a good thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:
unions are just more capitalist organization to exploit workers. . . We need pay equity and living wage laws, not unions which benefit a few thousand people.

---

C'mon, troll, you can do better than that. Do they exploit workers or benefit them?

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:
Unions and Charities are the buffers that keep the Capitalists in power.

---

That would explain why so many union members and activists in the voluntary sector are trying to give your hero Ralph Klein early retirement, then.

[ 08 June 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Unions are a Capitalist invention

---

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

quote:

---

Unions provide an economic advantage to the few, on the backs of the many. Because if everyone would 'make as much as a union worker', the purchasing power for the union members would drop due to inflation. So they choose to maintain a system of elitism for a few workers, while the majority have to fend for themselves.

---

Nonsense. If unions -- by which I assume you mean "union hierarchies" or "union executives" -- don't do enough to fight for "pay equality" (and what exactly do you mean by that, anyway?), it's because they have enough to do just defending their own members. Or, at worst, because they've gotten too happy and comfortable with their own influence and privilege to want to rock the boat.

But wanting to avoid a general rise in wages because they're afraid of inflation? Paranoid rubbish. No-one in the union movement -- and, I grant you, there isn't enough actual movement -- thinks like that.

It's true that too many unions do too little organizing. That's a serious problem. But good unions organize, and the best unions are the ones which do the most.

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Unions will not fight for pay equality. They will not fight for "Living Wage", because they know that whatever the majority of workers gain would diminish the value of their elite-workers who belong to unions. It's a hierarchy. Unions provide an economic advantage to the few, on the backs of the many

---

Ahhh...Red Albertan...I wonder what this is?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:
Unions provide an economic advantage to the few, on the backs of the many. Because if everyone would 'make as much as a union worker', the purchasing power for the union members would drop due to inflation... And because of unions, government has an excuse not to do its job and make sure every worker can survive on his/her wages.

---

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:
While the union bosses are virtual CEO's without a Factory, drawing 6-figure salaries, the grunts who do the real and dangerous recruiting work, draw worker's rates. Great. Come back to me when the union bosses equalize their pay to at least even with the workers they represent.

---

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:
I understand that UFCW has done quite a job recruiting new, younger organizers and I think that's a good thing.

So if some organizing leads can come out of an online forum...well why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:
No. We would have had a revolution, and capitalism as it exists today would have ended (or at least seriously set back).

---

This sounds very much like "the worse, the better" kind of rhetoric. I heard it from a number of lefties in BC during the last NDP government. A few of them actually voted for the Liberals and hoped for the worst. I think those hopes have actually been surpassed. I wonder what they think now....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:

Unions will not fight for pay equality. They will not fight for "Living Wage",

---

Wrong, they did fight for pay equality in BC and won it for everyone. But the Liberals killed it. By pay equality I mean equal pay for men and women. As for living wage, then why is the CLC and other union working with the Make Poverty History group or with National Anti-Poverty Organization on a living wage campaign? Why are unions fighting for No Sweat buying policys? Why are unions fighting for pension and wage protection for all workers?

because they know that whatever the majority of workers gain would diminish the value of their elite-workers who belong to unions. It's a hierarchy. Unions provide an economic advantage to the few, on the backs of the many.

In Sask. they won "most available hours" which would have removed a big reason for belonging to a union. Only to have it killed by the government. This time NDP.

Yep, unions only fight for union members.

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: ouroboros ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ouroboros:

In Sask. they won "most available hours" which would have removed a big reason for belonging to a union. Only to have it killed by the government. This time NDP.

Yep, unions only fight for union members.

---

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

For that matter, by your logic countries like the U.S. should have way better protections for non-union workers than countries like Canada or Sweden. U.S. unions are small and weak, so the benevolent government ought to be better able to provide benefits for all workers. Whereas in countries with larger, stronger unions, the greedy union members are keeping all the benefits for themselves. That, for example, is why the U.S. has universal health care for all working people, while in Canada and Sweden only union members get such benefits. Oh, wait, I got that backwards.

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

quote:

---

Red Albertan - I am seriously starting to wonder if any of you people can actually read (AND comprehend). This is very frustrating. I am talking about the abrogation of duties by government to make sure EACH citizen has a means to earn a living wage well above poverty line.

---

Presumably you don’t share the fairy tale view of the state and government that asserts that it is the neutral arbiter of conflicting interests and social classes. This is a class question as should be obvious: rich people don’t need laws that ensure that they are earning a living wage. They’re more interested in ensuring that their wealth continues to grow and that their children will be advantaged by it. Who is going to exert the pressure on the government to make the desired changes come about? Elves? The goodness of the hearts of the rich and powerful that currently dominate the formation of public policy? Why do you suppose that taking away (far from perfect) institutions of self-defence will somehow make it more likely that the lives of working people will improve?

quote:

---

I am saying the unions are only working for a small group, and that's a fact. The vast majority of workers have no such privilege as enjoyed by those working under a union, and never will under the current system.

---

The right-wing canard about rising tides for all of us as the result of capitalist well-being is much more true when applied to the activities of unions. The benefits of the well founded activities of unions spread throughout the whole social class. If a portion of the workforce is earning $100/day as a result of a strong collective agreement then others who do not belong to a union are in a position to demand more for themselves. Working conditions that unions gain on behalf of their members, like paid maternity leave, or a technological change clause, or the right to refuse dangerous work become generalized laws that apply to all working people. This is precisely how changes, such as they are, have come about that benefit working people. Presumably, laws that help ensure that working people are not killed on the job, for example, are worthwhile fighting for and defending even if the promised land isn’t around the corner.

Again, how are the desired changes that you advocate going to be brought about? These changes have come about as the result of the struggle of working people, often under the leadership of their union in their workplace. Unions are one of the first lines of defence for working people. Why would anyone want to remove that less than perfect line of defence without a concrete replacement?

quote:

---

Most people affected by wage inequality can't afford a lawn. But seriously, if people aren't willing to make the sacrifice, I guess it hasn't gotten bad enough. And the few that belong to unions largely no longer care, because they make plenty of money.

---

Quite simply, if working people, with or without unions, aren’t able or willing to compel government to provide for pay equity and a living wage for everyone at the current time, why would you suppose that people would mount a more effective struggle for these goals if it was “bad enough”? It’s not enough to argue that things have to get worse to get better; you need to show how things are likely to get better in the long run and not just in your imagination. Right wing politicians are very good at demanding sacrifice from working people and they are often believed because the sacrifices they demand are connected to concrete tasks and goals.

quote:

---

Come back to me when the union bosses equalize their pay to at least even with the workers they represent. Then I will retract my statement that unions are just another part of the capitalist system.

---

The numerical relation between the best paid and the poorest paid as exemplified by the first working class government in the history of the world (the Paris Commune in 1871) is in many ways an unsurpassed model for us to look upon. It’s worthy of study. Nevertheless, you’re jumping from simple improvement of people’s lives to a revolutionary reconstruction of the whole of society. Unions may help to improve society but it is hardly fair to criticize them for not being “revolutionary” enough. They’re not revolutionary organizations.

quote:

---

But don't tell me you're a socialist because you belong to a union.

---

Who made this claim? To say that unions are useful organizations of self-defence doesn’t mean that they are instruments of radical social change. Political parties make such things their business.

quote:

---

What I hate is that government makes unions a 'necessity' in a capitalist system, when they are completely unnecessary IF government does its job to keep the Capitalists on a leash.

Unions are a Capitalist invention, leading to the abrogation of responsibility by government to ensure everyone can earn a living wage.

But in reality, they provide cover for the government not doing their job, and thereby avoiding facing a revolution.

And because of unions, government has an excuse not to do its job and make sure every worker can survive on his/her wages.

No. We would have had a revolution, and capitalism as it exists today would have ended (or at least seriously set back).

---

The fact is that trade unions, such as they are and with all their warts and truckload of current problems, evolved as organizations of self-defence of working people. In Canadian labour history, for example, the historic compromise that saw the legal establishment of collective bargaining in Canada replaced a situation in which every strike was a political struggle. The compromise that was agreed to, which in fact is under attack and has been under attack for some time now, was that there would be rules and conditions that applied to workplace conflicts to prevent them from crashing over into general socio-political conflicts. The Winnipeg General Strike, for example, though on the surface seemed to be simply over union recognition, hours of work, rates of pay and so on, was interpreted as an insurrection and attacked with the iron fist of the state. These conflicts came to be seen as socially destabilizing and too expensive from the capitalist point of view. Unions became legal organizations from their history of being treated as criminal organizations. Such steps forward are always contradictory. The heyday of organizations like the Wobblies, who’s entire strategy revolved around the political strike, was over. The class struggle took new forms in Canada and those who advocated for fundamental social change needed to join a political organization or party. Just as intellectual life in capitalist society is chopped into watertight compartments that exclude each other and prevent people from making links in their minds that would deepen their radical understanding of our society, so too the class struggle in chopped into the watertight compartments of economic and political struggle. It is not you and I but the powerful who make the important rules of a society that they dominate.

Really radical organizations that are in it for the long haul will typically think in advance of forming clandestine (underground) units in response to state repression and violence that is inevitable when working people have an upsurge in their fight back. But even in the conditions of illegality, legal forms of class struggle are bridgeheads on the way to victory. To use a metaphor from WW2, the Allies had to land on and take Normandy before they could strangle the Nazi beast in Berlin. We need our beachheads too and it seems too simplistic to suppose that the Allies could have simply parachuted all of their troops on the Reichstag and victory would have fallen like fresh fruit into their laps. Life and class struggle is more complicated than that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:
The US has a capitalist-centred government. What's to discuss?

---

As far as I can tell, your contribution to this discussion boils down to the following: workers should not join unions because that only delays the ultimately necessary socialist revolution.

I think you're full of it. Your conception of unions as solely about insider/outsider groups owes more to Milton Friedman than to any socialist thinker I know. You fail to respond to any of the examples that other posters have provided. You dismiss the example of the United States as not relevant because it is a capitalist society. Well, aren't we all living in capitalist societies right now? Isn't the point of this exercise, from the left, to change those societies? Do you deny that the reason why unions have been weakened so greatly in the United States is precisely because it was in the interests of USian capitalists to do so?

Even the example of Cuba you gave, ignores the core early role of Cuban trade unions in building and sustaining the Cuban Communist Party.

quote:

---

Binns and Gonzalez write that there was a worker-student rising in 1933 which led to the overthrow of the military dictator Machado. This statement would have to be both qualified and deepened. The general strike of 1933 certainly included most shop-keepers, professionals, and many employers: it was not dissimilar to the General Strike movement, with bourgeois participation, that recently toppled Somoza in Nicaragua. On the other hand Binns and Gonzalez fail to mention the long series of class struggles beginning during the First World War, but gaining new strength and momentum in the years 1925-33, which certainly helped to promote bourgeois disenchantment with the Machado regime. The Cuban Communist Party (PSP) grew from a party of less than a hundred in 1925 to a party of over ten thousand, leading a trade union federation with 300,000 members by 1933. In fact the Cuban CP, unlike any other affiliate of the Comintern, actually became a mass party during the course of the ultra-left “Third Period”. Binns and Gonzalez rightly mention the PSP’s shameful negotiations with Machado but fail to register the ways in which the class struggles of the 1920s and 1930s decisively re-shaped the political traditions and level of organisation of the Cuban poor. They mysteriously refer to the Cuban trade unions as having a “limited membership” whereas in fact rates of unionisation in Cuba were consistently and systematically higher than in other Latin American countries. The PSP liked to proclaim its utter fidelity to Stalinism but the fact that it was established as a major national party meant that some Marxist ideas, albeit in a crude and adulterated form, were introduced into popular political culture.

---

Robin Blackburn, "Class Forces in the Cuban Revolution," INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM 9 (2nd Series), 1980.

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

Then you came along acusing us all of not being sufficiently "revolutionary" for your tastes. And we've had about 20 posts of discussion since, that I would say is not really all that accessible to a lot of people who aren't political theorists. Nobody else is trying to "silence" you. I think you're the one who diverted the discussion, and then you didn't like the result.

For what its worth, I think you're points might have found at least somewhat more receptive an audience if you'd started your own thread rather than hijacking someone else's.

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

robbie_dee: I think your points might have found at least somewhat more receptive an audience if you'd started your own thread rather than hijacking someone else's.

---

Good idea. Here's a new thread. Newbies take note.

another thread if you want it

Edited to add: wtf? Red Albertan, I don't understand why you felt the need to delete all of your postings.

[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Like all jobs it takes time and experience to get to the top and once you get the there should be a reason for stay. Some union leaders are making low six-figure wages but so is my roommate who is a young unionized automotive technician. But once you look at the taxation and the amount of hours they work they aren’t making much more than a fulltime unionized employee with a decent contract. I would rather pay more dues towards people who have the intelligence and foresight to operate my union than less to those who can’t. The labour movement isn’t about getting rich it’s about helping people and trying to show business the importance of morality.

Unions want to represent anyone who wants us. It’s your legal right to belong to a union and if you want one all you have to do is contact us. In the trades primarily there are usually specialized union sectors for example, carpenters and electricians etc. UFCW is a private sector union, for example, Loblaws, Pepsi, Maple Leaf, Etc…

Perhaps it’s just the North American perspective but life isn’t all about money. It’s certainly important but it isn’t only issue. When we look at other parts of the world living your life and having security at work is paramount. There are a lot of stresses that we all go through in our daily lives and work shouldn’t be one of them. Unions were created by working people who wanted better lives and it’s up to the people to decide if they want to belong or not. This is known as democracy and we all have a say in it.

In Solidarity,

quote:

---

Edited to add: wtf? Red Albertan, I don't understand why you felt the need to delete all of your postings.

---

Symbolic, don't you know. Some of us thought said postings were so much sheep-dip; therefore we were "silencing" him. QED.

I didn't attack Keith, and I think he is probably a bright and idealistic young man. As well, I enjoyed and respect some other posters who clearly do not share my take on some issues, but do not feel the need to become disrespectful. My issue was not with any one person, but with the union movement as it exists today, and where - in MY opinion - unions fit into the grand scheme of things.

At the very least my posting on babble has shown me that intolerance of diverging ideas is as dominant on the left as it is on the right. I thought babble was a great board for the exchange of ideas, and that is why I signed up. Instead I found out you gotta be part of the particular choir, or else you'll be ridiculed.

quote:

---

There are people who disagree, and then there are people who are real pricks when they disagree, and can't help but get personal when they disagree; and instead of exploring and exchanging ideas, and expanding a discussion, they choose to spit on those who have a different world view from their own, as if they are the ones who have all the answers.

---

True. At the same time, there are people who defend and support their claims when those claims are challenged, ignoring personal attacks; and then there are people who take those personal attacks to be representative of all the responses they receive. Which in turns gives them licence not to respond to substantive questions.

So forget, if you can, about stupid abuse like "troll," which I grant is vastly over-used and tedious besides, and speak to the issue. Several people here have produced strong evidence that suggests you're wrong to claim that union executives fight only for their own membership, and want said membership to be and remain an elite in the workforce. How do you respond to it?

Edit:

I've re-read this thread. Exactly one person attacked you personally. One. (OK, I ridiculed you -- but only after you made yourself ridiculous by the childish tactic of deleting your posts). So all this stuff about "spitting," "intolerance," "groupthink" et bloody cetera is just disingenuous rubbish, just a pathetic excuse for avoiding the issue.

[ 10 June 2005: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

If you only want to hear the voices you agree with, you will not develop critical thinking, and won't grow as a person. Your ideas will be stale and stagnant. I do by no means claim to have all the answers, but I have ideas and opinions to contribute for further discussion, like everyone else. Unfortunately they cannot be shared in a mutually respectful environment here, and since I'm not particularly interested in joining the choir, nor become part of the standard ideological "groupthink"

---

Sounds like you only want to hear voices you agree with...you're own.

I would, therefore, discourage anyone from doing what R_A has done here (deleting all of his own stuff) because it seems like cutting off the nose to save the face, or something like that.

I can only go by my own experiences here in Australia but unions here can "cover" anindustry or they can "cover" (represent) workers who are in a particular craft, occupation or profession (the two most powerful unions here are the doctors union and the lawyers union).

Hypothetically speaking if I worked a in a white-collar job (say finance for example) in a non-unionised workplace is there a union I could go to to ask for representation or is it just a free-for-all? I've checked at the Canadian Labour Congress home page but it seems as though organising is done on a regional basis.

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: goodfielder ]

Welcome to Babble, I'm really glad that you did come here and that you did post your info. Unions are extremely important and I agree that contact info for organizers should be more widely available.

I'm neither in Ontario nor in the workforce at the moment. I have however spent the last two years of my life accrediting the student union of the largest CEGEP in Quebec as an executive there for absolutely zero dollars and it has nearly killed me.

I think it's terrific that paid organizers are out there, I know several courageous employees who have succesfully started unions but it is a huge task while working full time at the job and the support and help of an organizer makes a union a more realistic possibility for many.

Finally, I've got to say, I HATE HOW PEOPLE ATTACK OTHERS FOR POSTING RELEVANT INFORMATION WHICH COULD BENEFIT PEOPLE'S LIVES AND DEMAND THEY PAY FOR ADS!!!!

I know rabble could use the money but honestly what do you think Keith's advertising budget is!?!?!

For fuck's sake let the man spread the word, he's not doing this for the money, it's great that he has a job and can sustain himself while helping others but I don't doubt that he could make way more working somewhere else.

The integral purpose of babble is information sharing and there's a huge difference between some a-hole posting spam for mail order brides and a progressive individual looking to spread the word about something worthwhile.

So please, knock off the "buy advertising" chorus, it really pisses me off.

Sorry for the harsh language, a pet peeve I guess.

quote:

---

Here is a interesting link to U.F.C.W. corruption. Sad thing is I work for Loblaws.

---

Is this the paragraph you are referring to here?????

quote:

---

The parties also had discussions about contributions towards the education and communication funds maintained by each Local. Most unions have similar funds. These funds are used by UFCW Locals for a variety of initiatives including steward and occupational health and safety committee member training, job related skills training, literacy and general computer skill training for members and the like. Under some collective agreements, including the agreement between Local 1977 and Zehrs, the Locals are able to get employers to agree to make contributions based on a certain number of cents per hour worked by members. Under other collective agreements, the Locals are able to get employers to agree to make lump sum contributions. Application of the hourly contribution rate of $.15/hour would have resulted in an annual cost to the employer of more than $1 million. The Loblaw representatives initially resisted making any contribution to the Locals' funds, but ultimately accepted that a negotiated agreement could include lump sum payments of $150,000 per year towards each Local's Education and Communication initiatives.

---

quote:

---

If you have questions about my union I’ll try to answer them for you.

---

1. Did Loblaw companies offer and did the UFCW National Office accept a payment of $1.5 million during the RCSS negotiations?

2. Did that offer play a role in bringing those negotiations to a successful conclusion?

Cash for Concessions: Exposed!

[ 09 July 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Keith Murdoch:

1. Did Loblaw companies offer and did the UFCW National Office accept a payment of $1.5 million during the RCSS negotiations?

2. Did that offer play a role in bringing those negotiations to a successful conclusion?

Cash for Concessions: Exposed!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goodfielder:
So how does someone get in Canada get union representation into a non-unionised workplace? Is it a bidding war such as I've seen first hand in the US or is it a little more ordered?

I can only go by my own experiences here in Australia but unions here can "cover" anindustry or they can "cover" (represent) workers who are in a particular craft, occupation or profession (the two most powerful unions here are the doctors union and the lawyers union).

Hypothetically speaking if I worked a in a white-collar job (say finance for example) in a non-unionised workplace is there a union I could go to to ask for representation or is it just a free-for-all? I've checked at the Canadian Labour Congress home page but it seems as though organising is done on a regional basis.

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: goodfielder ]

---

quote:

---

On the most part work sucks regardless of what you’re doing...

---

quote:

---

I can only speak for my experience in my own union but they are nothing but positive.

---

quote:

---

What a depressing sales pitch. That goes against most recent surveys about how Canadians feel about their jobs. The job satisfaction rate is usually in the 70%-80% range.

---

I'd have to see those studies.

Although I have seen a recent study done by a German university that showed that most folks...if left on their own and not "micro-managed" by bosses do genuinely try to do a good job at whatever it is they're supposed to be doing. On the other hand, the study showed that folks who were "micro-managed" tended to be much less productive then folks who were left alone to do their jobs.

quote:

---

There are a number of labour groups which do have poor job satisfaction that could use the help of a good union. What I find troubling are the unsupported blanket generalizations used by union reps when they are too lazy to do their homework to find companies which do need to be unionized.

---

The reality is that most organizing is done by groups of employees approaching a union as opposed to unions approaching employees.

Given how difficult governments have made it for workers to organize, a group of workers has to be pretty "solidly" committed to organizing just to get through the whole union certification procedure. It can take a year or longer ...especially with a vicious anti-union employer that raises all kinds of phony legal technicalities before labour relations boards ...to win union certification.

Often workers end up being fired for union organizing. Its illegal of course, but its done all the time. So more legal wrangling just to get fired workers their jobs back.

I invite you to hand out cards at the Loblaws Warehouse in Pickering called "Harmony". This is a warehouse runby "Exel" for Loblaws. It will employ upwards of 600 warehouse employees.