The title of the bulletin comes from the National Director of the Prairie Region Sister Cindy McCallum. As you are probably aware the Toronto Local Executive is recommending our members vote NO to this new tentative collective agreement. In a show of Solidarity from coast to coast other Local Executives have also voted No and we will keep you informed of who they are as we receive them.

Local Executives Recommending NO:

National Officers who voted No:

Not all of the Locals have had their executive recommendations but as they come in, and if we are notified we will keep you updated. The National Executive Board was split with an 8-7 yes vote. We discussed this at the Executive meeting and thought it was too close a vote, they need to go back to the table and negotiate a contract that is more acceptable to everyone. Again I will remind the membership that a No vote is not a vote for a strike. A NO vote gives strength to the National Negotiating Committee to go back to the boss and start negotiating for a better collective agreement.

In Strength and Solidarity
Jane Marsh
Toronto Local President
March 21, 2007
This bulletin will be updated on a regular basis.

Leaving aside for the moment, the rest of the Tentative Agreement, there are some very important questions about the Corporate Team Incentive which Brother Bertrand has failed to address.

The corporation has made it clear in the period leading up to negotiations that "employee engagement" is key to their strategy for dealing with postal workers. It is not accidental that one of their senior vice presidents' main responsibility is to implement this program and that "employee engagement" is the main component of the Corporate Team Incentive, which the corporation wants included in the Collective Agreement at all costs. Yet there is not a word about this in Bulletin No. 45

So what is employee engagement and why is Canada Post giving the Union an ultimatum on this issue? It is important to assess what CPC representatives have to say so that we can make an informed decision on the dangers this poses for the Union and its members.

Moya Green - April 12, 2006 - from Intr@Post:
"As senior vice-president Employee Engagement, Mary will work with me and others to improve some of the long-standing problems we have at Canada Post. When you look at some of the unfortunate statistics on grievances, accidents and absenteeism, they point to a malaise in this company. How we treat each other as colleagues and as people that work together in the workplace has a huge bearing on what we achieve over time. Imagine what we could accomplish if we were pulling in the same direction to make the company successful."

Mary Traversy - March/April 2006 - Performance:
"Engagement is really another way of talking about culture change at Canada Post. We want to create a culture where all employees feel well treated and respected. Over the past 30 years there have been difficult times with employee relations, but we need to get past our past. The war within needs to end, because today we need to work together to keep ahead of the competition."

"We're focussing on four key questions from the Employee Satisfaction Index: Do I understand the big picture? Is my supervisor a good information source? Are my efforts recognized? Does my team leader treat me with respect? We'll be watching these, because they serve as a good barometer of employee engagement. In addition we will be monitoring hard measures such as accident rates and absenteeism, which should decrease as the level of employee engagement increases."

In all these high sounding phrases about "listening to employees" and treating everyone with "respect", there is something very important which is missing. In their declarations the corporation refuses to recognize that the way to respect employees is to admit that the workers have collective rights some of which are enshrined in the Collective Agreement.

The corporation's obsession with "employee engagement" clearly shows that they not only refuse to recognize the rights we have gained in the past, but on the contrary, they view the process of collective bargaining as the source of all the problems faced by Canada Post. When Mary Traversy talks about "difficult times with employee relations", and the "war within has to end", she is simply complaining about the collective rights that postal workers have won through our struggles. So the "culture change" that Canada Post wants to impose is to force us to abandon the struggle for our rights and to put our faith in productivity incentives and the good faith of the corporation - to go from collective bargaining to individual begging!

The Corporate Team Incentive and its main component "employee engagement" is the mechanism the corporation intends to use to achieve their goals. To include this in our Collective Agreement is not only to deny the whole history of the CUPW, whose birth forced the federal government to recognize the right to strike of government employees, but much more than that it will give the corporation the tools they need to attack sick leave benefits, leave rights for workplace injuries, the right of disabled workers to meaningful work and a livelihood and even the grievance procedure, just to name a few. It is a trap laid by the corporation to get workers to compete with each other instead of facing the corporation as a collective and fighting to advance the interests of all.

With threats of privatization and deregulation, postal workers, like many others, are facing an uncertain future. This is no excuse for changing our orientation or compromising our principles! On the contrary, we must remember that the benefits and improvements in wages and working conditions won in the past, were achieved because of the strength, consciousness and level of organization of postal workers, fighting for the recognition of our rights; not because of the benevolence of the corporation.

The best way to build this strength and maintain our unity to prepare for the future, is to say "NO" to the tentative agreement, reject the CTI and "employee engagement" and go back to negotiations.

In Solidarity,

Louis Lang
President
Ottawa Local, CUPW
March 12, 2007

If Canada Post manipulated its profit sharing so it didn't pay out or paid out poorly, the results would be worse than having nothing at all.

Remember CUPW members have control over the tools of productivity and delivery. It's quite easy for members to:

1. Work Slow
2. Work Stupid
3. Work Without Shortcuts
4. Work Without Favours To Supervision

Screwing around with an incentive program would have a powerful negative effect on on the business of Canada Post.

Moya Green has went on record concerning the CTI with this statement: "Targets have to be reasonably achievable or the whole purpose of a bonus becomes meaningless." Please, hold her to this statement and be willing to negotiate the terms and scope (including temps) of the yearly bonus next contract.

David Barron
www.barronblog.com

We gave up our severance in the last round to get RR and SS drivers into this union. In Alberta they are quitting in droves. How ironic. We don't have to worry about getting CTI bonuses if you factor in this bit of news.....

Brian Savage
PO4

Tory rural mail pledge will cost over $500M, says Canada Post
By Jim Bronskill

Thu Feb 22, 2007 / OTTAWA (CP) - Canada Post says it will cost more than $500 million to carry out the Conservative government's order to fully protect rural mail delivery. It's a complex project that will involve assessing the needs of about 835,000 customers over a period of more than five years, said post office spokesman John Caines.

"This is going to be a huge cost," he told The Canadian Press.

In addition, Canada Post will find $30 million over two years to maintain a fund that subsidizes postage for domestic magazines.

The Conservative government ordered the post office late last year to continue rural roadside delivery amid concerns about the safety of mail carriers on busy rural roads. It also told Canada Post to drop plans to end the magazine subsidy.

Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, the cabinet member responsible for the post office, ordered the Crown corporation to implement a plan for continued rural delivery within 18 months.

Postal workers have expressed concerns about the risk to rural carriers who deliver mail to roadside boxes. There were about a dozen accidents last year, including two fatalities. Carriers are also worried about repetitive strain injury from leaning out vehicle windows to deliver the mail.

Canada Post says it recognizes the concerns.

"As an employer, we obviously have to provide a safe work environment for our employees, and we also have to abide by the Labour Code and the Criminal Code," Caines said.

Canada Post plans to assess hundreds of thousands of rural mailbox sites to gauge safety, taking into account things like traffic volume and sightlines.

Depending on the outcome, service may remain as is, the customer's mailbox might be moved to a safer location, or the resident may begin collecting mail at a community box.

In many cases, an assistant will be provided to the carrier to place mail in rural boxes as a means of addressing the problem of physical strain.

Documents tabled in Parliament say it will cost Canada Post $153 million over two years to implement the overall plan.

However, Caines said Canada Post expects to spend $475 million to $640 million over a period of more than five years to ensure continued rural delivery.

"It's something that we're going to have to find the money for, clearly," he said. "We don't have an option here. This is about safety, and about maintaining service to customers that we care a lot about, and we've got to find a way to do that."

Carriers are having trouble reaching agreement with the post office on a plan to move ahead with the assessments and any required changes, said George Floresco of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

"We've been dealing with this issue for a long time now, and we'd like to see it move forward," he said. "We thought we were working toward a settlement, but now I guess it's time to take the gloves off on this, because we want to ensure that there's service for rural customers."

Floresco said the sticking points are a mystery.

"We've made it really clear that this is a joint effort, and certainly it involves the public, who are the customers. But we're having trouble trying to get a handle on what the corporation's problem is."

"We're going to keep pushing. We're not going to let this go."

Floresco had not seen the cost estimates the post office drafted.

"That's a lot of money and obviously we want to see how they put those figures together."

Caines denied the union is being cut out of the loop.

"We've been in contact with them every step of the way," he said. "In everybody's best interest, we're trying to get this done as quickly as we can."

Copyright © 2007 Canadian Press

Although nearly everybody is agreed that the CTI is a bad thing, there also appears to be a tendency to see it in isolation from the rest of the tentative agreement: the CTI is bad but the rest of the agreement is good. I think we should view it in the context of what management has planned for us, the lack of adequate staffing, and the admail burden. Any failing on our part to deal with our working condition problems will be made worse by the inclusion of the CTI.

The bulletin attached mentions the Corporate Individual Performance Incentive found in both the APOC and PSAC contracts. Supervisors receive payouts based on their appraisals:

Exceptional: 3.0 to 4.5%
Commendable: 1.5 to 3%
Needs improvement: 0 to 1.5%

I obtained my info on the PSAC individual incentive from a PSAC clerk. They receive written appraisals and are rated 1, 2, or 3. She told me that they were all given 2s, except for one person. "Let me guess," I said, "he sucks up all the time." She laughed and said that that was exactly it.

Is this what we will all look forward to in 2011, when another Negotiating Committee comes with a list of small improvements and tells us that they don't like the individual incentive BUT look at all these $$$ improvements.... I shudder at the thought.

In solidarity,

Kathy Roczkowskyj
CUPW Steward, O/S Section, VMPP

The CTI: Carrot or Stick?

The CUPW Chief Negotiator, Pat Bertrand, knows that many members are uncomfortable with the CTI. To make people feel better about the inclusion of this management demand in the tentative agreement, he recently wrote that the CTI will probably "disappear" after one year. I think this is mere wishful thinking. Consider the following:

* The Corporate Team Incentive (CTI) is a potential payout of 3% of regular wages for eligible part-time and full-time employees. Casual employees are NOT eligible for the CTI. The Canada Post Board of Directors sets national performance targets in the areas of: customer satisfaction, financial performance, delivery service and employee engagement. If targets are met, employees could receive a payout of 3% of their regular wages. If targets are not met, the payout could be less than 3%. If the targets are surpassed, the payout could be more than 3%. Management reserves the right not to pay out any CTI if profits are low.

* The supervisor's contract includes a CTI. Supervisors are paid 4% if CPC meets management's financial, service performance and customer satisfaction targets. Payouts can also be less or more than 4%. The contract of the employees represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada also includes a CTI.

* Both supervisors and PSAC employees also receive a Corporate Individual Performance Incentive. Employees are rated by their supervisors and given bonuses based on the rating.

* The CTI has not disappeared from these contracts. There is no reason to assume that it will disappear from our's. Rather than disappearing, it is reasonable to predict that management will insist on expanding the CTI in some way during the next round of negotiations. They may decide that they want to base the CTI on local targets. Or, they may decide that they want to "reward" employees who don't file grievances, don't complain, don't take sick days or in some other way get on their supervisor's bad side, by handing out individual "incentives".

* The CTI is not "free" money. Management plans to save hundreds of millions by saving on staff wages and benefits. Moya Greene publicly stated in the National Post newspaper that she intends to cut 10,000 CUPW positions in the next few years as thousands of members reach retirement. We may receive a tiny percentage of these savings in CTI payments. But we will pay for this money. We will pay by "making do" at work: making do with not enough staff and making do with not enough equipment. We will be pressured to sort more mail, feed more mail, deliver more mail to make up for the lack of staff. Letter carriers will pay as well. Not enough staff and too many householders mean that they will continue to have to work forced overtime regularly. They will also pay for it with their health: bad knees, bad backs, bad shoulders.

* When CPC Vice-President Mary Traversy visited the VMPP last year, she told employees that she wants Canada Post to make greater profits. One clerk said: "Why should I care if Canada Post makes profits? The CTI is Canada Post's answer. By tying Canada Post's financial performance to a potential benefit, Canada Post wants to change the way we think. Now, most employees think the post office is a public service that serves the entire community. Profits should be used to provide more and better services, to replace community mailboxes with letter carrier service, keep rural post offices open, etc. But the current management sees the post office as primarily a service to companies and as a business that should be making money hand over fist. They want us to have a financial interest in agreeing with their vision. They want us to have a financial interest in whether or not absenteeism decreases, they want us to have a financial interest in whether our co-worker is working "fast enough". They want us to tie our financial interests to their objectives. They want us to ignore what is best for us: enough staff, enough equipment, getting along, and looking out for each other.

* The CTI is not new money. Money saved on staff will just move to the CTI column. The money CPC hopes to save by discouraging us from using our sick leave will move from the sick leave column to the CTI column.

* Canada Post's objective in this round of negotiations was to put the CTI in our contract whether we wanted it or not. And they were smart in how they did it. First, they made a long list of rollbacks. As the negotiations progressed they slowly dropped one rollback after another, none of which were very important to them. At the same time they agreed to one tiny improvement after another. None of these tiny improvements would prevent management from continuing with their plan to eliminate 10,000 positions, close down commercial retail outlets, contract out our work or increase the admail burden for letter carriers. They didn't agree to any major improvements in working conditions. The wage increase they offered was the average for unionized workplaces in 2006: 2.5%. Then they told our negotiators that if CUPW didn't accept the CTI there would be no deal. And the result: Ms. Greene sent a letter to every CUPW member to say that she was "very pleased" with the tentative agreement.

The Toronto bulletin that originally showed up in the mail processing stream last week and that personally attacks Toronto local leadership is not the way that respectful debate is conducted. We make mistakes here too, but we must remember that when all this is over we will need to work together to support workers rights on a day to day basis.

Some reasons why WE should vote YES on the Tentative Agreement:

Do the Math $ $ $ $ $:
Alberta Dental Fee Guide...currently coverage is based on BC Fee Guide. We are paying lots out of our pockets now IF you can afford to go to the dentist. Since May 2005, Example: Dental exam cost in Alberta: $45.00. In B.C: $21.50. Covered at 80% = $17.20 is reimbursed and you pay the rest! No other province is suffering this expensive situation. It must be corrected quickly. The longer we wait , the more we pay!
Value: $ $ $ $ $

Extended Health Care...currently we have 3 levels (tiers) of drug coverage: 50%, RAMQ, 80% and, a very complicated system. Changes should simplify and increase the coverage to 80%. In addition, new coverage for laser eye surgery , paramedical coverage for Podiatrists and Osteopaths to be increased from $400 to $500, Acupuncture and Naturopathy to be increased from $400 to $600, Speech Therapy to be increased from $500 to $600.
Value: $ $ $ $

Post Retirement Benefits...current coverage would increase and reflect the above changes to the Dental Fee Guide and the Extended Health Care Plan. Although the employer wanted increased deductibles and higher premiums, the union negotiated an agreement to lengthen the time that must be worked to qualify for post retirement benefits from 10 years to 15 years of continuous service, effective January 1, 2008. The employer will continue to cover 75% of the cost of the Extended Health Care plan, with retirees paying 25%. The employer currently covers 60% of the post-retirement dental plan premiums, with retirees paying 40%.
Value: $

Longevity Pay...the 1% will continue. Your rate of pay increases by 1% effective the date that you complete 28 years of indeterminate (permanent) service. This clause replaced the severance pay benefit in the previous collective agreement and of course is pensionable. Good for those best five consecutive years calculation of your pension!
Value: $ $ $ $

Vision & Hearing Care Plan...currently for Vision we have 2 year periods, maximum $130. This to be increased by $20.00 and we get the flexibility to combine the two periods (4 years) if we wish to use it that way. So for a 4 year period that is $300. Plus, a one lifetime maximum of $300 for visual correction by laser. For Hearing benefits the increase is to be from $600 to $750 for each 60 month period.
Value: $ $ $ $

Wage Increase...the cost of living in Alberta is higher so we have higher expectations. The increase is National and works out to 10.9% over the 4 years:
effective Feb.1, 2007: $.54 cents an hour
effective Feb.1, 2008: $ .56 cents an hour
effective Feb.1, 2009: $ .63 cents an hour * groups 3 & 4 get increase of $.94 instead of $ .63
effective Feb. 1, 2010: $ .65 cents an hour
So, for example over the four years, a postal clerk or letter carrier with the current top hourly rate of $ 21.77 would move to $22.31, $22.87, $23.50 and $ 24.15.
A Group 3 Mam-11 at top rate would move to $25.25, $25.81,$26.75 and $27.40.
A Group 4 EL 4 at top rate would move to $ 28.05, $28.61, $29.55 and $30.20.
Retail Lead Hands would also receive a $ .51 cent per hour increase. So over 4 years: $ 22.82, $23.38, $ 24.01 and $ 24.66.
Value: $ $ $ $ $

Shift and Weekend Premium Increases...currently evening shift premium is $ .95 per hour and it would be increased to $ 1.15 per hour. Night shift premium is $1.15 and would be increased to $ 1.40 per hour. Weekend Premium is $1.15 and would increase to $1.40 per hour.

There is a lot of shift work and plenty of weekend work. These amounts apply to all classifications and include temporary workers.
Value: $ $ $ $ $

Seniority Calculation....currently your seniority starts when you become 'indeterminate' or permanent. This change would have seniority start with the first date of hire (continuous service). This is a huge gain for those with temporary service.
Value: $ $ $ $

Job Security Provision...this clause protected those in Quebec City when they closed the plant. This is probably the most important clause in the collective agreement, and would ensure job security for future-hires up to September 2007.
Value: $ $ $ $ $

Solidarity,
Sister Karen Kennedy
Secretary-Treasurer
Edmonton Local CUPW, March 12, 2007

In the latest missive from the Negotiating Committee, Brother Bertrand mentioned that the negotiators were conscious of negotiating during a time of layoffs and pension rollbacks. While it is true that the UAW has had layoffs, I have argued that CUPW has not been in such a strong bargaining position for a long time. In December 2006 the labour economist Andrew Jackson noted that unions were not negotiating very high wage increases and wondered why. It could be that other union negotiators have also convinced themselves that they are in weak positions and as my co-worker says: "If you believe you're defeated, you are defeated."

I have attached a bulletin that I distributed to my co-workers several days ago that explains my position.

Kathy Roczkowskyj
Vancouver, Canada

In a hot market you don't accept the 1st offer!

Some people who are urging you to vote "yes" are arguing that a "no"vote
will result in the privatization of the post office. I disagree. In my opinion, the support for privatization is weak. CUPW is in the strongest bargaining position it has been in for a long time. Consider the following points:

-- There are labour shortages in many areas of the country. The economy is strong, unemployment is low and many companies are competing for the same workers. Clearly, this is an excellent time to be in a bargaining position with an employer.

-- The C.D. Howe Institute is a right-wing organization. It gives money to conservative professors to do research and write reports. In February they released seven reports on a variety of topics. One of them advocated the privatization of the post office. This is not a new idea - it has been suggested before.

-- The right-wing columnist, John Ibbitson, wrote a column in the Globe and Mail newspaper on February 14th in response. He argued that privatizing the post office is a bad idea. Mr. Ibbitson repeated what CUPW has been saying for decades. He argued that the post office is mandated to deliver mail to everybody at the same cost. "Any privatization of the service would lead to one of two results: Canada Post would be forced to service rural areas at public expense while private companies horned in on the profitable parts; or rural users would be forced to pay the full cost of delivering their mail."

-- On March 8th a National Post columnist complained that governments are no longer interested in privatizing. "Every few months some group calls to privatize one of Canada's Crown jewels -- Liquor Control Board of Ontario, Canada Post, Canada Mortgage and Housing, and Atomic Energy of Canada are recent examples-- and politicians just slough it off."

-- The right-wing Fraser Institute is also complaining that politicians of all stripes are no longer interested in privatization: "No matter what the stripe of government, nobody is talking about it."

-- Mr. Ibbitson points out that recent "bitter experience" with privatization suggests that the "privatization boom may be at an end." Twenty years ago privatization was sold as a miracle cure. But the public and governments have learned that it isn't. While CUPW should continue to lobby politicians on the benefits of a public service, we should also realize that the right-wing's call for the privatization of the post office just doesn't get the same bounce it once did.

-- Mr. Ibbitson argued that forcing rural residents to pay the full cost of mail delivery is "politically impossible." He points out that rural voters make their displeasure known. The Conservatives want a majority. They're not going to go looking for ways to drive away their rural supporters.

-- The federal Government is a MINORITY government. The Conservatives cannot pass a law without the support of at least one of the other political parties. None of the other parties supports the privatization of the post office.

Canada Post has made a profit for the last 11 years. Despite faxes and the internet, lettermail continues to grow.

-- Paul Martin appointed Moya Greene. Stephen Harper will not be pleased if a Liberal appointee provokes a postal strike and takes his mind off of the political issues on his agenda. Does Ms. Greene want to be the first CPC President in 10 years to have a strike on her watch? Probably not.

-- Nothing in our contract was given to us on a silver platter. For the last 40 years we have fought to improve our working conditions and wages and benefits. We have always been hard bargainers. We have used strike votes to put pressure on management to negotiate seriously. A strong NO vote will send management the same message: Get serious!

Don't vote out of fear. Look at the agreement and ask: Does it contain solutions
to the staffing and admail burden problems? Is this the BEST that we can do?

2. Arguments against the CTI bonus system would probably look ridiculous in the press and on the floor of Parliament. This could lead to unpleasant rollbacks in third party arbitration.

3. Whether we like it or not, the CTI program has been around for some time and APOC members have profited from it while CUPW members haven't.

4. I discussed CTI payouts with some APOC supervisors and they were quite happy with them.

5. Very soon air mail products from and to Canada Post will have to be scanned and delivered on time in order to receive payment. It helps if employees are on board with this operation in order to process air mail parcels quickly. If employees(i.e. CUPW members), get a bonus for meeting delivery targets, it's highly likely that profits will continue to go up and we'll get part of this "Corporate Team Incentive Bonus" that only management gets now. If the incentive isn't there, delivery targets could be missed which could cost Canada Post millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars. There would be pressure to cut back on our benefits, wages and full time jobs. Sections of the Post Office could be privatized which would result in job losses and a worse work environment.

With job security, high wages are not an incentive for posties to work hard or even work at all. You get paid just for showing up. How is management suppose to meet its delivery targets when many posties only care about their pay checks?

6. If a CUPW member doesn't want his/her CTI bonus, he/she can always donate it to charity.

7. It appears the National Executive Board has been weakened by internal dissent and lack of support from some local unions. The odds of achieving more in Collective Bargaining at this point are slim and none.

8. I believe that postal management will try to make the CTI bonus system work well over the next four years to win over the hearts and minds of non-believing posties(."Targets have to be reasonably achievable or the whole purpose of a bonus becomes meaningless."-Moya Greene)

9. The wage increase in practically the same as PSAC and APOC wage increases. However, the 2.75% in the last two years of the proposed agreement looks better than 2.5% across the board. The 20% increase in shift premium isn't too shabby either(This is the first increase in 20 years.)

10. The recent wage increase in the U.S. postal service was something like 1.6% over four years.

David Barron(PO5, TEO2, 34 years of service, 4 and half months of strike time, I paid my dues)
www.barronblog.com

As an inside worker, what do I know about letter carrier issues or whether letter carriers got a good deal or not in the tentative agreement?

Extensive propaganda by one side on the other doesn't clear up my lack of experience on letter carrier issues.

There's a general complaint about over centralization of CUPW decision making at the national level. Local executives get shut out of contract talks and certain issues are being ignored and/or put on the back burner.

It's time for letter carriers to concentrate on issues particular to themselves and inside workers to concentrate on the same thing.

Bandaid solution won't help. It's time to shake things up at the foundations.

David Barron
www.barronblog.com

Oh, and their shift now starts at 7am. One other puzzle: why does Retail have a 1 hour lunch (half an hour unpaid) when compared to other PO4s? And better yet, why was article 1326 changed, in the current c/a, to specifically exclude Retail members from asking for a section bid--and these are generally the most senior PO4s?! I don't recall this as a major demand last time, the loss of use of seniority rights. Not that I'm cynical. All the changes in the current c/a, the long delays and protracted silence from National, the gutting of the strike momentum and the sudden concession on severance left plenty of bad taste and its starting all over again. Time for term limits for elected officials. Our National president hasn't seen the work floor since 1990.

Brian Savage (PO4)

Dear Brother Bertrand

Re. Bulletin #47- Tentative Agreement- Internal Staffing

Why is the chief negotiator trying to dress up the employer's failure to properly staff during the current collective agreement to look like an achievement reached in the tentative agreement?? Is he the only person in the country who believes the rhetoric that the 186 full time jobs that Canada post owes us under the current appendix p was somehow achieved in this round of bargaining? The presidents who attended the National Presidents meeting and the membership on the work floor know the reality all too well.

The truth is that we were unable to achieve this crucial demand that drastically affected virtually every grade 7-9 office in the country. Our demand was to not to have more meetings with the employer; our demand was not to have them provide more information; and our demand was most certainly not for more "meaningless" consultations. That language already exists in the contract and has done precious little to save one job in our smaller offices let alone create ones.

The lead hand job description is yet another example of an unachieved demand. Our members in lead hand positions have been for years manipulated by an employer who used whatever means they could to have these workers perform more and more employer duties beyond those in their current job description. What this "new" language does accomplish, besides moving the reference to "wicket clerk" from the title to the actual job description, is entrench all those "outside" duties into the new lead hand job description. Apparently the input from the 100 or so lead hands was taken by our negotiators much the same way the input from the union's presidents was taken by the national executive board. It simply fell on deaf ears.

To add insult to injury and further alienate this group of workers, the union accepted the employer's demand for a lead hand differential of 51 cents an hour.

If these are the significant achievements reached in this "tentative agreement", they are significant only for the employer. Very few of our actual demands were met at all.

Members will not be fooled again by a smooth-talking employer and some union officers telling them to believe that workers made gains; so many so that they must overlook the rollbacks and the unachieved demands to vote yes on this agreement.

Workers deserve to be told the truth about this agreement and how it came to be. They will not blindly swallow this poison because the national union and the employer tell them it is Kool-Aid.

The Struggle Continues

Jeff Callaghan
Education and Organization Officer
Atlantic Region

I had to search out and find this forum because it seems to be the only CUPW forum in Canada.

Why isn’t there a forum on the CUPW National Website?

The most obvious place for CUPW members to give feedback on contract issues would be on this site. Members could also vote on polls relating to concerns on CTI and other issues. A password could be given to ensure that each member only voted once. For those who don’t use the internet, phone polls or mail polls could be used as well.

The NEB and local executives throughout the country should push to get the 50,000 membership involved with contract talks. Let’s invite their participation with a user-friendly forum on the National website.

Sincerely,
David Barron (PO5, TEO2)
www.barronblog.com.

1. Saying “No” To The CTI Bonus System?
2. Letter Carrier Issues?
3. Having A “Tentative Agreement” Too Early In Bargaining?
4. Lack Of Confidence In the Negotiating Committee?
5. All Of The Above?

Out of the thousands of CUPW members, the Toronto Local has focused only on National or Local Executives whose opinions match theirs. This isn’t membership feedback. It’s just propaganda.

A true poll or survey would ask all the membership how they felt about the CTI or some other problem like letter carrier issues.

The “Toronto Survey” is vague and negative.

Every CUPW member’s opinion matters, not just those of the ruling elite.

Let’s have a general national membership poll on the CTI and a letter carrier poll on letter carrier issues before the ratification vote.

All the best,
David Barron (PO5 Inside worker)
www.barronblog.com. (34 years in Canada Post, four and a half months of strike time.)

P.S. I don't know anything about Letter Carrier issues so how can I comment on them?

Without going over every point raised in the posting, I think a few things are either neglected or distorted.

The burden on letter carriers is not addressed in any tangible way. Letter carrier restructures across the country continue to result in a loss of walks/routes and the workload will likely be even greater when the new dimensions for HH's are implemented.

The ongoing reliance on compulsory overtime to have unstaffed walks/routes covered does not seem to be addressed at all. In Alberta, the compulsory overtime issue is hammering our members when they are forced into overtime on a daily basis to cover unstaffed walks.

The group 1 staffing provisions are nothing more than a resolution to the current violation of the national ratio. It does not address the staffing shortage that exists in so many of our offices, particularly grades 7-9. I don't see that a provision guaranteeing consultation is any sort of significant breakthrough. Consultation is generally meaningless and ineffective for the most part when dealing with the employer on this issue.

The tentative collective agreement does very little to address the group 3 compensation levels paid to our members that are grossly behind the trades wages paid outside of Canada Post.

I find it most concerning that there is such a simplistic and almost dismissive response to the negotiation of a productivity based incentive plan into our collective agreement. I often find myself wondering how Brother Parrot would have responded to this employer demand as our National President and Chief Negotiator.

Unfortunately, I don't think our national leadership has done much of anything to combat the damaging effects of QWL over the past several years, despite a national conference on the subject which concluded with recommendations that have not been implemented. While it is true that the employer has had QWL/TQM projects in the past, they were never intitutionalized into our collective agreement and the members did not have the enticement of an annual bonus in order to achieve the employers objectives. I continue to be concerned over the conflicts between the negotiation of this scheme and the provisions contained in our national constitution, particularly the preamble and the policies in section B.

If we were going to engage the membership in a struggle against the employer on QWL, I'm left to wonder how effective some think we will be when we've done nothing for so long and it is now a compensation system in the collective agreement.

I also don't believe that it is accurate to suggest that nothing else can be done at this point except to go on strike or ratify the tentative agreement. I think that the determination and will of the membership needs to be mobilized against the offer from the employer. Should this collective agreement be rejected, I think that sends a message to the employer on the areas that are not sufficiently addressed in their offer. The members have a right to demand more from this wealthy employer and their threats of re-submitting their previous roll-back demands should not be used against them to accept something that is unacceptable. There is nothing new here on the employers approach in this regard. Been there, done that, defeated it!

It would be in the employers' interest to re-enter negotiations with the Union should the members reject this offer. They have more to lose in the event of a strike than the members would using selective and creative strategies developed by a unified National Executive Board that is focused on meeting the needs identified by the membership.

I'm troubled that some suggest that this tentative agreement would be acceptable if the CTI were removed and I don't think that is the reality on the floor. Many other areas of the collective agreement require improvements that were reflected in our program of demands, that was the message that the members resoundingly expressed at the President's meeting in Toronto but it doesn't appear as though they have been given the consideration owed to them. I think its imperative that the activists and local leaderships' views are respected and considered as they are the ones that battle it out with the employer on a daily basis and have to respond to the problems the members face.

I think that now, more than ever in our history, is the time to be bold and defiant with Canada Post and demand all the rewards that our labour produces.

Yours in Solidarity,
Darren Steinhoff
Union Representative Prairie Region

During this round of bargaining, we achieved many of our demands and many breakthroughs. We have negotiated provisions that had been rollbacks in previous Collective Agreements. This time, I believe it that it is in the membership's best interest to vote YES for the following reasons:

Wage Increases & Benefit Improvements

Whereas the last Collective Agreement negotiated our Drug Benefit Plan at three different levels: 80%, 70% & 50%. This round we have successfully negotiated the entire Drug Benefit Plan at 80% - this is an important gain which puts money directly into the pockets of our members.

We have increased many of the Extended Health Plan benefits as well as the Vision Plan Benefits, which, for the first time will include a small amount for laser eye surgery.

We have strengthened our provisions on equity hiring and have negotiated money for a DVD in Sign for our deaf and hard of hearing members.

We have negotiated a raise in shift premiums to $1.15 for afternoon shifts and $1.40 for nights & weekends. This is a 20% increase in premiums. For wages, we have negotiated an increase of 2.5%, 2.5%, 2.75% and 2.75% over the four years of the proposed tentative Collective Agreement. This works out to be a 10.5% increase.

This is above inflation and is protected by a COLA (cost of living allowance) of 8% for the last three years of the proposed tentative Collective Agreement.

External

In previous years, we had lost the relay credit for householders for most routes. This time, we have managed to reintroduce it for all routes.

In past rounds of collective bargaining, more money for householders has never been achieved. We have now negotiated a 15% increase in the householders delivered for Group 2 employees - this will become effective in 2008.

For residential routes, householders over 115 grams which have been reduced from 14"x 6" to 12" x 6", letter carriers will receive $.04 per householder an increase of $.01 over the current collective agreement.

We have reduced two sizes in the charts and have increased the money for all householders.

It is true that we have increased the size of some householders to 9", but this is less than the current size of 14" x 10" for business.

What should be noted is currently there is no 12" x 9" householder in the system and when it does enter the system, we will have a time value per piece for this householder.

Once a route receives two sets of householders over 6" in width, routes will receive time value for each piece along with the relay credit for weight, which applies to all householder sets.

We have also negotiated a right for members to use carts on request. Also, the right to receive assistance for overburdened routes.

All of these issues have repetitively appeared at the negotiating table before. I cannot recommend that we lose these gains.

Internal

We have also made major breakthroughs in internal staffing.

We have negotiated an appendix where a minimum of 25 full-time regular positions will be created in Grade 7, 8 & 9 offices.

We have negotiated an obligation that the Corporation will consult for the purpose of creating full-time positions in these offices.

We have also negotiated that all staffing grievances filed in 2006 are considered active and can be arbitrated.

We have also improved the information provided to each local & the National Union so that we will have better staffing grievances in the future.

We have also negotiated the return of the monotainer repair back into Montreal. This will preserve jobs for Group 3 & 4 members.

Pilots

We have made major breakthroughs in Pilot Projects in Appendix 'T" in the form of new corporate retail offices and customer business centers with flexible hours.

We now have a pilot that expands retail in an area for which we have been asking for many years: total customer care at retail. The 'Pack and Wrap' Pilot is about us taking a product and offering the public wrapping service for their product. This will allow a customer to bring in a product and we will wrap it and ship it for them.

This is the first new service in many years that the Corporation has offered and this has been one of the previous Pacific Region demands. If successful, it will be rolled-out across the Country, creating new work and jobs in our retail offices.

For our GL & T members, we have negotiated a number of new pilots to be tested.

The first is a 'Building Maintenance' Pilot. Our members will perform preventive maintenance on the Corporation's buildings. This Pilot will lead to more work & jobs for our GL & T Group.

We believe, based on information from other industries that this will be successful and will be spread across the Country. This is a first in job creation for our GL & T members.

We also have a Pilot for MMHE. Mobile repairs in the Toronto area. If successful, this also will be circulated throughout the Country and create more work and jobs for our GL & T Group.

Employer Demands Removed from the Table

At the start of this round of negotiations, the Employer had many rollbacks on the table, just some of which included:

• Individual recognition, employee dinners & raffles,
• Pay out of nightworkers recovery leave,
• Guidelines for footwear (members must purchase footwear approved by CPC),
• No barriers to where CPC can accommodate members,
• 30% part-time in retail,
• one month freeze in P.O. 4 transfers in Parcel support,
• Mandatory complaint stage,
• No grievances with regard to the attendance management program,
• Deletion of five-minute wash-up for meals & end of shift,
• Reduction of vehicle inspection time,
• Change definition of tech change (Article 29),
• Eliminate end of route travel time,
• Increase benefit premiums for current & retired members,
• Recognition of exemplary attendance (payout for good attendance),
• 3rd party review of medical certificates,
• Additional pay for private vehicles and pay for taking out relay bundles,
• Increased maximum specification for householders to 12"x12" by 1" thick,
• ½ hour more production for all mobile & MSC's per day,
• Composite position for Group 1 and Group 2 in letter carrier depots,
• Bilingual candidates for bilingual retail positions, no regard for seniority or training,
• More flexibility in Corporate operations to respond to market conditions,
• Members able to go acting supervisor without loss of seniority,
• Allow supervisors to assist employees on an incidental basis, and
• Able to remove one arbitrator per year from the arbitrator list.

These demands have now been removed.

The one demand we could not remove is the CTI (Corporate Team Incentive).

CTI: What is the CTI?

CTI is the measurement of the Corporation's profits, customer service and on time delivery. It also measures intangibles such as employee engagement.

CTI measures National targets, and NOT local, individual or depot levels. It cannot be used for individual work measurement.

It is no different than all the other programs the Corporation has thrown at us in the past.

Cascade, Partners for Tomorrow, Customer Plus and US are all programs that have come and gone. In fact, there are more than can be remembered.

Some of the opposition who are voting against this proposed tentative Collective Agreement are the same members who voted in favour of a 1995 Collective Agreement, which contained increases and increments based on performance & responsibility for admail crew chiefs. The CTI is not a performance or responsibility based incentive.

I do not believe that the CTI will be a long term program either. In fact, I believe that this 'flavour of the month' will disappear as have all of the others.

We have informed the Corporation we will not participate in the Program and will do shop floor education against it.

This is clear: It is better to accept this proposed tentative Collective Agreement with gains for all postal workers. Some gains, of which, were years in the making. It is better to accept this proposed tentative Collective Agreement than to go on strike to try to remove the CTI, and risk all the rollbacks that will be brought back to the table if we go out.

I strongly believed that the last proposed tentative Collective Agreement warranted strike action to get rid of the serious rollbacks.

However, this time, gains, not rollbacks are on the table. In this proposed tentative Collective Agreement, any strike action would be for the purpose of removing the CTI - which may or may not pay out to the membership.

Both yes & no sides of the question on this tentative Collective Agreement agree that the CTI will most likely only be paid for one year. If it should pay out, the cost to the Corporation would be too great to continue.

Both yes and no sides agree that without the CTI, this is an acceptable Collective Agreement, one with major breakthroughs and real wage increases.

Vote YES

In every round of negotiations, there comes a time when both sides agree each has reached the point of a final offer. We are at this point.

There will be no movement from the Corporation except to add more rollbacks to the table, and the Union would add new demands.

Currently the life of our Collective Agreement is extended to the end of April 2007. At that time the Employer can either lock us out; change our working conditions; or, the Union must be in a position to strike.

I do not believe we can do better than what was negotiated. My experiences in '87, '91, and '97 lead me to believe that a Union should use a strike when it is in the Union interest. A strike is always a strategic question.

The question is whether it is in our interest to go on strike at this time. I do not believe we will achieve more with a strike than what we have achieved through negotiations.

We need to vote YES to this proposed tentative Collective Agreement.

In Solidarity,
Pat Bertrand
Chief Negotiator & National Director - Pacific Region

Brothers and sisters,

I am writing to inform you about what really happened during the very last moments of the negotiations, and why I left the National Executive Board (NEB) on Wednesday February 7th 2007 after only 10 minutes of debate.

I took a week of holidays (January 20-28, 2007) and none of the information coming from the negotiating committee indicated that we would be in this divisive situation. During that week of holidays I kept in touch with what was going on in negotiations, and at this point everything was at a deadlock.

When I returned on January 28 2007, the NEB were still meeting and it was only at this particular moment that I found out about the corporation's final demand to include the Corporate Team Incentive (CTI) in the collective agreement.

One of my interventions was directed to the negotiators asking them to stop negotiating immediately, until the corporation removed the CTI from its global offer. Other members of the NEB asked for the same. This is a major issue that the corporation will use to trap us. Some members from the negotiating committee stated that they thought the corporation would let this demand fall. This point was confirmed by Brother Pat Bertrand, chief negotiator, in Toronto at the national president's meeting.

With this information, the negotiations continued.

The national negotiating committee made every effort possible to obtain from the Boss a second offer before the president' meeting, and as you saw in Toronto the NEB was going no where, and was unable to make a decision. That is what I believed.

I don't think I have to tell you everything that was said in Toronto, but for me it was clear that most of the presidents and delegates who were there spoke against the CTI and raised issues about internal staffing and more.

To my knowledge, every member of the NEB was supposed to have a meeting after the president's meeting and then decide with a 15 person board, what we are going to do with this offer on Wednesday February 7th 2007, at 10:00 am.

I was surprised to hear that the meeting was delayed to 11:30 am because our National President and Chief Negotiator were sitting at the bargaining table with the Boss. At 11:45 am they distributed two documents that the corporation gave to them that morning. One was to clarify the question about the CTI, and the other one was to confirm the creation of 186 full-time positions from appendix "P".

When the meeting began I asked two questions: 1) "Is that true you returned to the negotiating table?", and 2) "With whose mandate?"

I must admit that the answer pissed me off! There was no consensus at this time from the NEB for the negotiation committee to go back and meet the corporation for further negotiations. Obviously there was one member of the NEB who wanted more precise information about the CTI, and just wanted more information. (And why? The Boss already gave them the documents so…judge for yourself)

I spoke loudly, but I do not think I spoke loudly enough during my second intervention at the Presidents meeting. I said that there is no way that the negotiating committee can go back and only ask one question. If they returned and asked questions regarding the CTI it would show the Boss that we are interested in it

I stated that the "yes vote" of the NEB did not listen to the delegates at the National Presidents meeting, as if we were not at the same meeting. I also stated that they had no mandate to meet the Boss and that by doing so, they had tied our hands with the CTI. I am questioning why the NEB is only working with two people. You can imagine how loud my voice was, and I picked up my stuff and left after ten minutes.

Point of information: Nobody from the NEB knew or gave their O.K. for the negotiations bulletin of February 6th 2007.

How this worked with the Negotiation Committee insulted me to the highest levels, and the answers they gave me were an insult to human intelligence. Also it ignored all of the union activists concerns who were in Toronto and said "No" to the CTI. Even if I was out of the room, I stayed close in case of an important vote.

On February 8th 2007, Brother Denis Lemelin and I tried to pass a motion stating that we wanted the negotiating committee to go back to negotiations table raising 5 points (attached). I challenged the President's decision because she wasn't recognizing Brother Lemelin as the first speaker, which he was. After many discussions the motion was tabled with 6 people dissenting.

As you are aware the recommendation to adopt the Boss's final offer passed 8 to 7, with 5 national directors voting against.

After that many bulletins were produced telling us how good the new collective agreement was in an attempt to sell it to us. I cannot deny that we obtained some good points for members, but there are always two sides to a coin, and when you read the text you will be able to evaluate the situation yourself.

The last meeting of the NEB was on February 12, 2007, and if you read the negotiations bulletin #41 sign by Sister Bourque (the vote was 7 to 7), she used her preponderance vote. I don't know how to consider this bulletin, is it a campaign of terror? Or is it because of disarray? It's important to note here that every person who voted against knew what the consequences would be.

When are we going to fight back this vicious attack from the Corporation? None of our demands were accepted by the Corporation if they made the union stronger (Appendix "U", Social Shop Steward etc…). The Boss is trying to buy our members. Ask yourself a question: What will Canada Post ask us to give up in 2011?

One thing for me is certain, we are deeply divided and our Union is in an identity crisis.

A sister once approached me and asked "Why create Unions, to defend workers from hypocritical, vicious and arbitrary attacks from the Boss? What will become of our union activists and leaders if we always bow to the Boss's first demand?

Why are there so many bulletins on the CTI? How can we tell the membership on one side of the coin that the CTI is the worst danger for workers and the union because it divides, and creates conflict between people? And then on the other side say "Well it is a good collective agreement but we have to accept the CTI even if we don't like it, while at the same time engaging CUPW to invest time and money to educate people from our educational fund. (This fund had no increase!)

How can we also tell inside workers about staffing? I suppose we will see what happens in 4 years?

I believe we have an important role to play as leaders in the negotiating process. Nobody should have to be ashamed in saying "NO" to the CTI as it is against our fundamental principles. It's a question of survival for the Union and for all of our members. The CTI is not healthy, and unfortunately its perverse effect will only be felt in the long term.

I have the obligation of giving to you, my sisters and brothers at work, and also to the new members to come, a heritage without any corporate incentive program. Because our future may have CTI and I don't want to see that happen.

To convince us, we cannot forget what the reality at Canada Post is: management's arrogance when they cut positions for internal workers or the closure of post offices like Quebec City, and more recently in Noranda. The corporation is creating competition with team work and sales goals for wickets. Also intimidation from supervisors against letter carriers who work overtime on their own route, and even in the new appendix about this subject, nothing says that the present situation will cease.

The Regional office appreciates all of the locals who wrote a letter and took a position against the global offer, for me that position was clearly demonstrated in Toronto:
NO CTI! MORE STAFFING!

It's important for us that you discuss this with your members and take a position because they will ask for your opinion.

I hope it clarifies the situation.

In solidarity,
Pierre Bernier
National director
Quebec's région

Here a list of the executives from Quebec Region who will vote "NO" to the global offer.