73 posts / 0 new
Last post

I agree that modern public sector labour disputes are mostly about perception and public opinion. The union also has a PR department, so it's unsurprising that the city would hire a PR firm as well. I haven't been keeping count, so I don't know which side is ahead on leaked memos, I bet it's pretty close but who knows. I doubt you'd even be able to find them all since many are probably dropped by the news outlets. I do know that at least the first media blackout was lifted unilaterally by the Union, I don't know if they've even bothered to have another one since according to CUPE the ban was meaningless (if either party can just go ahead and ignore it, then why did they bother agreeing to it in the first place? Just dirty politics)

I find it concerning that some of the other CUPE locals in the lower mainland have matching clauses that state that if the Vancouver strike ends up with a better contract than the local one (e.g. Richmond) then locale will be obligated to match. I think that clause has sold out the Vancouver locals for a longer strike than necessary, as the CUPE bargaining committee has a further incentive to let the Vancouver strike go on longer in order to get a better deal for members who are not technically part of this bargaining process.

I did like the video you initially had posted. I hope it helps.

I asked around because I wanted the facts to be 100%: Cupe BC has one permanent, paid media liason: Diane Kalen.

The rest are volunteers.

yikes, check your field. Trafalgar had been mown by soccer parents

That incident was at Killarney, and I think it was on the field inside the running track (i.e. not the one we use) although I'm not 100% sure. That field has been cleaned up, but probably still a good idea to walk your field anyway.

the mediator is working on recommendations and hopefully should be voted on by the end of next week. however, they are nonbinding so anything could still happen

While the mediator works on his recommendations, another union member assaults another person who was going about their business.

Where is the union outrage about this? 2Shoes, you called me out and said that my concerns were unfounded, but obviously you were wrong. I hope you write your Union representative and loudly exclaim your repugnance for this. Ask for this person to be fired, make sure that the Union knows that you don't want to be affiliated with such thuggery.

I wonder if the Union would grieve this person being fired?

"allegedly assaulted" I think you mean. After a heated argument between two men.

Unions can't fire people. That's a management responsibility.

Of course the Union would grieve it. The alleged assault has nothing to do with the person's work
abilities. Do you think you could fire someone because they got into a fight on their personal
time? Thank god for unions to protect workers from that kind of a scenario.

You mean his personal time that the Union was paying him for right? His personal time where he's committed to walking on the picket line? That personal time, where he's representing the Union, wearing a placard and getting paid.

Or maybe you meant his personal time where he's not getting paid and is neither representing the Union nor the City?

How about if the firing was contingent on whether or not he's convicted? Or if it could be shown that he violated the 10m ruling? Or is that not enough for you?

Picket duty is voluntary, that's why I referred to it as personal time.

It may be stupid to get into an altercation on the picket line and make for terrible optics, but
how can the City fire someone for something that has nothing to do with their job? I suppose
the union could revoke his membership, but that measure would be a little harsh for the
offence, esp. if it's the first time the guy has put himself in a situation like this. Certainly,
some type of censure or punishment might be appropriate, but taking away someone's job
isn't the answer, nor is it within the capacity of the union. Should I repeat that a third time?
It's not up to the union to hire or fire.

Without all the facts and evidence (was the union member provoked by action or word?) I
think you are premature in your conviction and sentencing of the fellow.

It's clear your anti-union bias is clouding your perception on this issue.

I'm sorry, but you think it's OK for the union member to assault someone?

Don't be ridiculous. I do however, believe in due process.

Do you think it's ok to convict someone based upon a news report?

emd By emd

"Picket duty is voluntary, that's why I referred to it as personal time."

It is? Wow, I didn't know that...I always thought it was mandatory.

Why picket then? If I could get paid to sit at home I would do that?

This isn't meant to be inflammatory, just curiousity to learn the reasoning behind picketing.

Generally you only get paid if you picket. otherwise nobody would.

I believe that it's clear that someone would have to really stretch the concept of "personal time" to include picketing.

A couple of articles in the sun about the ongoing dispute:


17.5% over 5 years seems quite generous and they have city wide whistle blower protection so it seems like a red herring to me. I wonder what they're holding out for now, or if this is just another example of the Union not representing their memberships best interest.

[EDIT] I removed the http from the links to try and fit them into this wonky forum system's terrible system. I also put the apparently optional argument on a trailing line. The URLs still worked for me, but I'm not sure if they'll be necessary for someone else to view them.

emd By emd

From the Sun:

"But working at a pile-driving company and a trucking company during the strike, he can earn $1,800 every two weeks after tax -- and that doesn't include strike pay, he said."

So he is working AND getting strike pay?

re: picketing... I am using a poor label (personal time) to differentiate between work duties and
all other activities. Picketing isn't a part of one's work role.

re: strike pay. Yep, EMD... just like if someone was working two jobs.

Ah well, it looks like I need to expand my garbage storage area some more. At least my camping BFT (that's Big F#@%ing Tarp) will get some good use in the off-season.

I won't stay in this thread too long (and perhaps it's already too long), and I just want to say this...

I find it a little dichotomous that even though more outside workers want to accept the mediator's findings/suggestions, they need to go with the minority wishes. Yes, I understand that there was a 2/3 requirement, but the underlying result is that the minority group (roughly 3/7's) still gets their way.


Sentence 1: "Picketing isn't part of one's work role."

Sentence 2: "just like if someone was working two jobs."

Thanks, I enjoy a good chuckle.

The distinction you've missed is that the first scenario is in response to your assertion that
someone should get fired from their job for something they've done on the picket line.

But, to reaaallly spell it out. Should someone get fired from Job A because of something they
did at Job B? Pretty hard to make that argument IMO. You're welcome to go for it however.

emd By emd

Some things that bother me:
* the union only needs 50% + 1 to go on strike, but 2/3rds to get off strike?
* if the private sector is so good, why are these people in the union?
* the union members CAN get another job, but the city CAN'T hire replacement workers? Awesome!

emd, you refer to "the union" there were actually 3 unions involved. only one of which needed 2/3rds to approve.

and the second part of your argument, thats the whole point of a strike.. you should be a city manager!

emd By emd

Nah...I wouldn't want to deal with the unions!!