babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Strikers ask union to discipline managers

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Strikers ask union to discipline managers
Mick
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2753

posted 13 July 2004 02:28 AM      Profile for Mick        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anyone else have the "what did you expect, they're managers?" reaction to this story?

quote:

Strikers ask union to discipline managers
WebPosted Jul 8 2004 09:20 AM ADT

CHARLOTTETOWN — Striking Aliant workers in Prince Edward Island are complaining to their union about having to watch their members go to work everyday. That's because of a unique situation on the Island where level one managers are represented by the same union as the people walking the picket line.

The Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union represents 70 of the phone company's managers in P.E.I. They are part of a different local than the strikers, and because of their job classification must walk through the picket line each day and report to work.

"We're just totally disgusted that the people are doing this," said Noel Pauley of the striking union.

He said five of the managers have chosen to stay at home without pay rather than handle work that used to be done by the people on the picket line.

Aliant spokesperson Brenda Reid said the law does allow workers to make that decision without risking their jobs. But she wouldn't confirm the number of managers on leave.

"We are extremely pleased with the response and the dedication of our management employees there on P.E.I."

The strikers want the union to penalize the managers who are still working. Pauley said that could include suspension, or heavy fines to fellow CEP members.

"I've been assured by our union leadership from the national there is action going to take place and its not just window dressing."

Until then, the strikers shout at the managers as they go into work each day, and Pauley said things won't be much easier when everyone goes back to work.

Pauley said the 70 managers should have stayed at home to allow the strikers maximum bargaining power.

"Once a scab, always a scab, its going to be hard to, we might forgive but we will never forget. These people have the protection of a national union with 150,000 strong that says they'll support them. And yet they've allowed themselves to be sucked in by either intimidation or the greed for the dollar."



From: Parkdale! | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 13 July 2004 08:30 AM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sort of, but my 'yet another union falling for divide and conquer tactics by allowing low level managers into the union' reaction was definitely stronger.
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 13 July 2004 10:12 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Um, low level managers have every right to unionize, too. They are in a separate bargaining unit. I think that if they have the consciousness to unionize, they should have the consciousness to respect their fellow unionists' picket lines. But the fact that they're not doing so is hardly a unique situation when two or more bargaining units exist in the same workplace.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 July 2004 10:26 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anyone have any idea why on earth the union accepted management into its ranks in the first place? Did they assume that through the magic of collective bargaining and labour brotherhood there would be no conflicts of interest there?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 13 July 2004 10:28 AM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Of course they have the right to unionize. And they should respect picket lines. But I think that they should have been told to join another union.

As managers, they are going to be required by upper management to work during a strike by their fellow workers. Being in the same union causes the type of grief that the strikers are now feeling. It can only weaken the union, unless the union really cracks down on the managers. In that case the managers will be mighty upset, and the union weakened.

Divide & Conquer.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 13 July 2004 10:29 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
EDIT: what radiorahim said.

[ 13 July 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 13 July 2004 10:29 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Its always a messy situation when you have a strike taking place in a workplace where there are multiple bargaining units. Even messier when the same union represents both bargaining units.

Those who are in the bargaining unit that is not in a legal strike position face reprisals by their employer for refusing to report to work. Those who are on legal strike naturally resent those who are crossing the picket line.

In terms of legal protection, in this particular situation the Canada Labour Code gives the managers the right to refuse to do the work of those who are on strike.

In terms of "workplace politics" its the norm to try to work out some kind of picket line protocol to minimize any conflict between the two bargaining units.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 July 2004 12:30 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If they're allowed to stay home without pay, without risking their jobs, then the managers SHOULD. However, the union should support those who do by giving them strike pay, whether they're officially on strike or not. If they're expected to act like they're on strike, then the union should treat them like they're on strike.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 13 July 2004 01:06 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Especially since im sure those 5 managers have just severely limited their careers and probably would end up being 'laid off' within a year.
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca