The contract calls for a wage increase of 4%. Sounds good, until you read the Statistics Canada forecast that inflation in Alberta will be 4.3%, meaning the union negotiated a real wage decrease of 0.3%.

So I commented on this, noting the inflation rate, noting the avg private sector wage gain of over 7%.

The union rep replied well, Lethbridge only got 3% so we should be happy. I asked and who negotiated a 3% wage gain in Lethbridge? the answer was well, we did (same union).

I couldn't believe it.

After the meeting I went up to the union rep and asked why, in an economy as volatile as Alberta's, wouldn't the union ensure the contracts have a COLA clause. His priceless answer?

"Well, because employers don't like it."

Swear to god. I couldn't believe it. I not very rambled that employers don't like vacation time, lunch breaks, or raises of any kind either, I was in a bit of shock.

He replied well, there is an up to 3% performance bonus too, so really we are getting a 3% raise after inflation. Again, in shock, I mumbled that a performance bonus is exactly that, a bonus, and certainly shouldn't be counted in with wages.

He told me to vote how I like, shrugged his shoulders and turned to someone else.

quote:

---

up: This was my first union meeting. I am so disillusioned now.

---

Sorry for the bluntness, but, ... how long have you been a member? How many years? I mean, you should be attending meetings anyway. A union is only as strong as the participation of its members. And if you're a newbie to this sort of thing ... then don't be so willng to jump to conclusions.

quote:

---

He told me to vote how I like, shrugged his shoulders and turned to someone else.

---

That's democracy for ya. What's your alternative?

3 year contract 4% each year.

I was just so pissed off. Im better now but still surprised.

quote:

---

up: Doesn't every union have COLA in their contracts???

---

Uh, no. I wish it were true. By the way, Members of Parliament actually have COLA in their pensions (indexed) as well. And they're not even unionized.

quote:

---

Originally posted by up:

3 year contract 4% each year.

---

That's better than the vast majority of contracts in Canada right now. The average negotiated annual wage increase these days is less than 3%. I can't judge the overall package because I don't know what's in it. But I can't think of any unionized workers bargaining 4% annual increases!

quote:

---

Doesn't every union have COLA in their contracts???

---

In 2001, only 43% of contracts had some type of COLA. With inflation at less than 2% for many years now, the demand for COLA in my experience figures near the bottom of workers' priorities.

Stats Canada source material on COLA

ETA: By the way, you said Stats Canada is forecasting 4.3% increase in CPI for Alberta next year?!!?!! Mind sharing your source with us??

Also, I just found the HRSDC reference site for average wage increases in all industries as of 3Q 2006. The average increase is running at 2.6%..

With the greatest of respect, please do some research before being pissed off with your union. And keep one thing in mind. Your union is YOU. You get the credit and the blame. Get involved - it's a rewarding experience.

ETA again: Here's a better annual picture 2003-2006 for wage settlements by sector and province. Alberta is right up there at the top - but the average for 2006 is just 3.3%.

[ 25 November 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

This article from Statistics Canada notes that private sector wage gains are over 7% a year (and this is when the forecast for inflation was 2.3%..)

quote:

---

Originally posted by up:
With all due respct, it is you that needs to do your research.

This article from Statistics Canada notes that private sector wage gains are over 7% a year (and this is when the forecast for inflation was 2.3%..)

And it notes that inflation is now at 4.3% in Alberta (and considering what isn't in the basket, and what is going up in price with the shortage of low skill workers, real purchasing power is even worse off than this).

---

Please read more carefully.

The increase in CPI for Alberta from October 2005 to October 2006 was 3.0 percent, not 4.3%.

Source: Nov. 22, 2006 release from Statistics Canada.

As for the article you mentioned, your link is not quite correct - here is the proper link.

And here is what your article says:

quote:

---

Hourly earnings in Alberta have risen by over 7% just in the past 12 months ending in June, including an increase of over 10% in Calgary. This reflects both wage hikes and jobs shifting to high-paying sectors, as the trend of hours worked has been flat despite the conversion of many part-time into full-time jobs (part-time jobs are defined as less than 30 hours a week).

---

Read it carefully. It does not say that the average increase in hourly wages of a job was 7%. It includes not only "wage hikes", but the effect of "jobs shifting to high-paying sectors".

In simple terms, you can increase your hourly wage by much more than 7% if you go work in the oil and gas industry.

The only proper comparison is to unionized wage settlements, and I've already provided you with those.

[ 26 November 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by up:
Swear to god. I couldn't believe it. I not very rambled that employers don't like vacation time, lunch breaks, or raises of any kind either, I was in a bit of shock.

He told me to vote how I like, shrugged his shoulders and turned to someone else.

This was my first union meeting. I am so disillusioned now.

---

Welcome to AUPE.

I don't think a lot of people posting questions to you here really understand the depths of incompetence and corruption that infect that union, and in turn, the entire labour movement in Alberta.

AUPE is essentially about raiding other unions and cutting sweetheart deals to block out other other unions from retaliating. Only in AUPE:

-do members not have the right to directly elect their locals bargaining team.
-do local executive members describe mutual gains (read: concession)bargaining as a good thing.
-can a tribunal meeting behind closed doors block a member's grievance from going to arbitration.
-does the union rake in record amounts of dues and then demand concessions from their support staff.
-hire staff on the basis of who the (former)President's freinds are (Let me guess, your Rep. is from Local 003, Corrections?)

quote:

---

EDMONTON — Alberta's largest union will lose membership dues after all over an illegal strike by 10,000 hospital workers more than six years ago.

The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees was initially out $600,000 after the province's labour board imposed as punishment a two-month suspension of dues.

But the union dodged any monetary loss in August, 2004, when a Court of Queen's Bench judge ruled the labour board overstepped its authority.

Now the Alberta Court of Appeal has upheld the labour board's original decision.

It's been suggested the dues suspension could now cost the union at least $1-million because its membership has grown substantially since the strike in May, 2000.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Globe & Mail: AUPE to lose dues for two months

---

I know nothing about AUPE other than what I've read on this board - including criticism such as the opening of this thread which doesn't appear to be based on a full appreciation of the reality of union settlements.

But don't expect too much sympathy from progressives in Alberta as AUPE is still under suspension from the house of labour for raiding.

In addition to the points unionist has ably made, I'd also add that a lot of private sector wages have increased significantly because in many sectors they, on average, start lower than union wages. In other words, they've got farther to go in the first place.

(I recognize, of course, that averages are almost always misleading. )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alberta Guy:
I was a member of CUPE when I was an Emergency Medical Responder. We had a deal that completely sucked too, and the employer often ignored his obligations. My solution was finding other employment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

When I hear about an attack like this, however (the two-month dues "fine"), I would hope that all progressive people could rally together and condemn this as an attack on workers' rights.

---

Which would be fine if AUPE itself wasn't an attack on workers' rights.

Backroom dealing to raid CUPE Locals and shepherd their members into a union (The Canadian Health Care Guild)about to merge with AUPE isn't what I would call "progressive".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ursa Minor:

Which would be fine if AUPE itself wasn't an attack on workers' rights.

Backroom dealing to raid CUPE Locals and shepherd their members into a union (The Canadian Health Care Guild)about to merge with AUPE isn't what I would call "progressive".

There are a lot of progressive people who think AUPE got what they deserved.

---

Let me get this straight (remember I now nothing about AUPE except the gossip I'm picking up on this thread):

1. Some workers are pissed off with CUPE (I would imagine, otherwise why would they leave?).

2. They exercise their legal right to vote CUPE out and vote in some new thing sponsored by AUPE. (This is bad? They should not have been given the right to choose their union!?)

3. AUPE is punished for organizing an illegal strike and deprived of income for two months (thus making it more difficult, I would imagine, to serve their members' needs).

4. Some "progressive people" are happy about this situation?

Word of advice, Little Bear: Caution these "progressive people" to stay far away from any of my union meetings. They may find their "progressive" label a bit threadbare.

[ 30 November 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
And as for the contract offer, you always have the option to vote against it, and possibly convince other union members to do likewise.

---