Longshoreman Strike
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
The union and the employer is bigoted against little people.
Shortshoremen are shoremen!
We must protest.
Shortshoremen are shoremen!
We must protest.
Bullshit...laugh all you want...read the reasons for the strike....This is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.
So never negotiate? Get a job and never ask for a raise or anything to change? Get rid of durations in Collections Bargaining and just make them all indefinite?
They didn't wake up yesterday and decide they didn't like their job randomly. They're striking because they're negotiating a new agreement. And you know there are a ton of rules around striking right?
You say if the company is following all guidelines, leave them alone. And yet striking had guidelines too, and the workers are following them. Illegal strikes are called "Wildcat Strikes", but this isn't one of them. This is a legal strike in support of Collective Bargaining, being conducted by workers who are without a contract.
Imagine you aren't on a union but you sign a term contract to work until July 31st. The employer wants you to extend, but doesn't give you a contract. Are you really going to show up on August 1st on good faith?
These workers did. And eventually decided to stop. A strike is them saying, "I'm not coming to work until we can agree to a contract." They're not being paid, so they're not working. I'm assuming you know they don't get paid by the employer when they're on strike, right? The might get someone pay from their Union, but it's going to be pennies on he dollar compared to their regular wage. Last time I went on strike I made $28/day while on the job I got paid over $150/hr.
"these employees know this when they applied..."So contracts should be indefinite and no one should every ask for a raise. God you must really hate people to think that
"The strike by members represented by Unifor Local 414 comes amid concern among workers that their wages haven’t increased much over the years while big grocers have seen large profits. The Competition Bureau said in a June report that the country’s largest grocers – Loblaw Cos. Ltd., Sobeys Inc. and Metro – reported more than $100-billion in sales in 2022 and earned more than $3.6 billion in profits."
It's not that they're not getting paid well...it's just that the company reported 3.6 billion in profits....
sure they can negotiate it...maybe Metro will budge and give in...who knows....this isn't about a Billion dollar company not taking care of employees....
First off, that's not what you were saying before. You said, "If it sucks working there...". Secondly, I'm well aware this is about money, which is why my post was about money. Thirdly, a corporation making record profits and giving their CEO record compensation is indeed "not taking care of its employees". Inflation was skyrocketing before all the post-COVID labour negotiations. All the experts agree the majority of the inflation we're currently facing came from two main sources: rampant government spending during the pandemic and price gouging, primarily on staple goods like food.
In other words, Metro and other grocery stores jacked up prices because they could. They took advantage of the market to get theirs. If you support libertarian capitalism, you're all on board with that. But the problem is that directly caused their workers, and everyone else, to have reduced standard of living. So employees are doing the same thing: taking advantage of the market to get theirs back in an effort to stabilize and restore their standard of living. If you're a libertarian economist, you're all on board with that too.
Here's where there's a problem though. People like you applaud business for taking advantage of the market, but then criticize workers for doing the same. You'd rather a billionaire become a multi billionaire than regular folks be able to put food on the table.
You should really think about why you want to people to suffer so much.
No blue collar workers wage has kept up with inflation. Unless you have have a job with the Federal Government.
What I am saying is, which you can't figure out, they are already making a good wage for the skill level required. They shouldn't expect a wage increase of more than 2-2.5%. Not sure what the Union leadership is telling them, but most likely it's a load of bullshit.
I worked in a Union for 30 years so I know the kind of bullshit they sling during contract negotiations to keep the membership riled up.
Why shouldn't workers' wages keep up with inflation? If it doesn't, it's a pay cut. Why does the CEO get a raise many times inflation, and investors get returns many times inflation, but workers get pay cuts?
You say it's "already a good wage", but that won't be true if inflation keeps up as it has and wages don't keep on line.
Anytime that someone's wages don't increase by the same amount as inflation did the year before, they're taking a pay cut. Why do you think workers deserve a pay cut year after year after year when everyone else gets to keep up with inflation?
CEOs should stop taking pay raises by your logic too. No more bonuses or raises for them because they already get a good wage, right?
It's madness that you're advocating workers should shut up and be happy to take a pay cut when the company is making record profits, especially when those record profits are one of the major reasons why they're getting a pay cut. The cost of their food has gone up a ridiculous amount, the cost of the mortgages and rents have gone up, but they should keep making the same amount? Your lack of empathy for your fellow men is astounding.
Your theory is so flawed it's not even funny. It's sad and pathetic.
So by your theory all these workers should get a 7-10% hourly wage increase. So that means the price of groceries in those stores would also go up by that amount if not more. Which would lead to nobody shopping their. So the store would close and the employees new wage would be whatever EI is paying. Yeah that's a nice living.
Your term of a "pay cut" when inflation goes up as it does every year is ridiculous. Nobody gets a pay cut when inflation goes up. They fall behind in cost of living. It happens to everyone every year.
As far as CEO's pay and compensation goes, yeah they make good money so maybe they shouldn't get huge raises or bonus payouts. Most CEO's wage and compensation are determined by the board of directors. But you have to admit the CEO has much more responsibility than the cashier or someone who stocks shelves. Therefor that is reflected in the wage and bonus compensation.
If the business where a worker is employed cannot increase profits by the same amount as inflation, there is no reason a worker should expect a pay raise in line with inflation. CEO's, on the other hand, are compensated based on what a company assesses to be the total impact of their decisions on profitability/loss control. A CEO might only raise profitability by 1%, but if that 1% happens to equal tens of millions of dollars, the likely salary bonus generated will be far in excess of 1%. Same thing if the CEO manages to reduce losses by 1%.
Worker contributions to a business don't really have the same variable impact on the bottom line.
If your wages are falling behind inflation, and you believe there are better wage opportunities out there, my advice is go get another job. Why doesn't this simple solution occur to more workers? Maybe because the profitability of Canadian businesses is widely stagnant, and most workers are therefore losing real income?
If an employer is making inefficient and unwise business decisions, including how they pay their top management, it should be a simple matter for a wise new competitor to enter the market, right? Why don't they?
Lol...I don't know what point you're trying to put across...I don't think Metro employees are being paid miniimum...which is suppose to be where the government should step in to mitigate inflation effects...the way you're looking at things, i think you're too emotionally invested in how you think about this topic...i have nothing against employees...if there are really better options out there, go grab it....like i said, I've been working some contract jobs at metro and they have great products, store is top notch, their employees break room are on par with Canadian Superstore (PC)...you would think they're well taken care of...
Why? The store is making record profits. Are you saying the store can't handle going back to just making the usual amount profit? They had several years now of record profits to fill their coffers and reinvest in the company, and now they can give the workers a raise and go back to their normal amount of profits. If you're suggesting they actually cut prices instead and actually bring about negative inflation, or deflation, I'm good with that too. But we both know that isn't happening, and based on your post history so far I'd be surprised if you say you think corporate profits should be cut.
You're exactly right: they fall behind in standard of living. That's effectively the same as a pay cut. The money they make no doesn't go as far as it used to. The house they bought, the car they bought, the school they put their kids in, etc was all based on their income. But as the price of all those things go up, they can no longer afford it. That's effectively the same as a pay cut. If we ever saw negative inflation, or deflation, that would effectively be a pay raise. Any raise less than inflation is effectively a pay cut.
And it doesn't happen to everyone. I haven't accepted a raise less than inflation in about a decade. Sometimes it outstrips the existing collective agreement because we can't bargain into the future, but then when the agreement ends we negotiate to get it back. How do I manage it? By being in a Union. If your raise aren't keeping up with inflation, you have your anti-Union views to deal with.
The Board of Directors also approves collectives agreements. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make bringing that up.
But then if it's good money the CEO shouldn't ask for a raise or bonuses and the board shouldn't give them one. You just said these striking workers make good money so they should just be happy with it, and you just said no one should keep up with inflation. Everyone should just race for poverty.
Did the responsibility on the CEO increase year after year? Nope. Same responsibility as ever. But you think they deserve massive compensation increases that outstrip inflation? So you think workers that are paid well should just never keep up with inflation but they should be happy because they're paid well, but CEOs that are paid well deserve raises many times inflation because they have responsibilities. Have I got that right?
I'm just asking you to justify your position. If all you can come back with is "you're too emotionally invested" than I'll take that as you can't defend your position.
Why should workers not fight for a raise equal to inflation at a time when a company is making record profits, any when those record profits are in staple goods that are directly contributing to inflation? All you've said is, "you're too emotionally invested" and "they should find a job elsewhere". Neither of which answers the question.
It actually varies depending on Market fluctuation...You're watching too much TV is you think CEOs are just sitting in their office doing diddlysquat...CEOs have much more responsibilities than you think...case in point, Bud Light...a regular cashier won't cost the company billions of dollars...CEOs VPs of marketings and executives could...
I'd love to know what metric you used to determine the I thought CEOs sat in their office doing diddlysquat, or how much responsibility I think they have. Because clearly you've just pulled all that from your ass.
You see, I'm actually looking at CEOs as workers. All management, in fact. And I believe that they, just like rank and file workers, should get pay raises that are at least equal to inflation.
That's the difference: I'm being fair. I think CEOs are human. I think they deserve empathy and compassion. And therefore I think their compensation should keep up with inflation. But I also apply that standard to workers. Because again, I think they deserve empathy and compassion.
Between 1978 and now, CEO compensation is up almost 1500% while worker compensation is up less than 20%. Given that CEOs level of responsibility is as high as it always was, why do you think they deserve to continue to get nearly double digit raises while workers don't deserve to keep up with inflation? It's a simple question: defend your position. You've failed to do so spectacularly so far. Why don't you take a stab at it. Just once.
Basic math failure. Loblaws could increase their profits by approximately 33% by increasing their profit margin from 3% to 4%. Looks like a disproportionately large incrrease, right? However, assuming that wages equal approximately 75% of revenue, if Loblaws decided to turn over THEIR ENTIRE increase in profitability (1% of revenue), the resulting wage increase to workers would be approximately 1.3% (76%/75%) a number that is FAR lower that recent rates of inflation.
Do people actually know what's in a contract before signing it? Most people have no idea what's in their contract particularly when it comes to termination and severance. Unless they have multiple offers, they have to take whatever the company is offering. Most if not all employers try to limit the their downside like severance and try to put language in the contract that just barely follow the labour laws.
So a 3.6% net profit margin ($3.6 billion in profits / $100-billion in sales)
that is thin
they have to control their operating expenses carefully
ceos have skin in the game , line workers do not
when you have skin in the game you assume risk, line workers do not
reward is commensurate with the assumption of risk
the left are incapable of understanding the rules of engagement
They do, you are going to sign it everytime you have a pay increase as well....
What is fair? Most CEOs either inherit the hardships their ancestors do...some also got to where they are wth their own merit...I'd say it's wrong to negotiate when all you bring to the table is the CEO haveing more angle....also that have have the stockholders to get their share etc etc...so far an offer was rejected....we'll see...
"Basic math failure" says the guy who didn't do the math.
Let's do it now, shall we?Number of striking workers: 3700
Average wage of striking workers: $16.46/hr
Inflation last year: 6.5%
Let's assume every worker is full time. They aren't, but this will get us the maximum it could cost Metro.
6% of $16.46 is 97¢. Let's round that to a dollar. 40 hours per week with 52 weeks in a year is 2080 hours. At an extra $1/hr that's an extra $2080/employee. Times 3700 employees, that's just shy of $7.7 million dollars.
Nope, your right. That's a huge number. No way Metro can afford that, can they? Let's check...
In Q1 of 2023, Metro made a profit of $218 million. In a quarter. Last year, they made $849 million.
So were you right? Did I fail basic math by suggesting Metro could survive on a measly $841 million in profits? $841 million in profits is too small in your mind?
Maybe next time do the math before you rush to try and make a point if you don't want to look foolish.
The CEO got a 6.8% raise, for the record. And a share of $13 million in bonuses. It would cost them half of what they gave 5 people in bonuses to give standard of living stability to 3700 people. And you clowns try to defend the 5.
Edit: I used 6% instead of 6.5%. it's $1.07/hr, which is $2225.60/yr/employee, or $8.2 million/year. But somehow I think Metro can still get by on 840 million per year.
Last edited:
