With the impending ratification vote on the horizon, I cannot help but wonder what it will bring. I know, like most visiting this site to watch the "debate", I have been given a lot to think about and a lot to open my eyes. I would expect that those having a negative feeling towards the CTI are in the majority. I would say about one-third of our membership is strongly opposed to the CTI while another third is critical of it, but do not think it is a good enough reason to strike.

I will have to admit that in its present form the CTI is not the beast I thought it was going to be. Currently it can only be applied on the national level and not target small groups of people to "modify" their behavior. However, the problem is that the CTI has potential to do harm and I am not gullible enough to believe that Moya is pushing this thing to make my life easier. If this contract is accepted, we will be taking a Trojan horse into our camp. A very big unknown dressed up to make the package look good.

We have always rejected any system that allows the reward-and-punish or befriend-and-betray methods that management uses to keep unionists in line. The CTI needs to be recognized for what it is, or what it can be. The CTI has already split us into to camps and I cannot help but wonder if Moya is watching (and by-the-way, we know CPC monitors this site) and is already toasting her victory.

The biggest concern I have is not the CTI, but the state of our solidarity as we approach what could be the hardest and most trying time for this union. Divide and conquer has long been an extremely effective weapon against unions. It is a strategy that pits brother against brother, and will eventually weaken the membership. For unions all over the world solidarity has always been our battle cry. Solidarity is key to winning any workers' battles, and it is key to the fighting whatever plans Moya has for the CTI or us.

For the first time, I feel a very strong connection to the rest of the CUPW national family. I see hundreds of our members coming to this site to scrutinize, or contribute to, the latest round of postings. I see everyone coming together to express their views and voice their concerns. I see democracy at its best.

Each one of us should be proud to be part of a great union that is striving in every way to protect your jobs, rights, and benefits and to offer services to our members that are second to none. But, unless our union remains strong, everything that has been gained in the past will be lost.

Lets turn this thing around and let the CTI unite us. Brother-against-brother is an act of desperation, not inspiration. We need to achieve greater solidarity and less dissension and begin to move this union forward again. It is time to find our common ground with this issue, because that is where our solidarity, and struggle, begins.

Take care,
Robert A. Chant,
Webmaster, Breton Local 117

I sit here today thinking of our beautiful union. The union I have come to be very proud to belong to. I'm sure you all feel the same way. This is why we are so concerned about the situation we are in at the moment. This situation has the potential of dividing the union and that is the last thing we all want to see.

We have to stop the HE said and SHE said and really look at this from a different angle. When a person is put on the defence to protect themselves we get nowhere. So I believe it is time to ask some different questions and see where that takes us. Questions that a Brother has mentioned in an email to me. Questions that made a lot of sense.

How did we get to this point?

What went so wrong?

- or -

Where did we go wrong?

How come we find ourselves in this situation?

I really believe that the majority of those involved with this union have good intentions and are committed to do what's best for the membership.

So the question to be asked is why we find ourselves faced with this mess?

- and -

What is now our next step?

This obstacle has been put before us to bring us together, to make us stronger and united. It's time to not think of 'Who has the power' because it isn't about power it is about what is best for the membership or what the membership wants. We have to let them decide. They are the ultimate authority, our job is to let them know everything we have had the privilege of access to. Trust that the membership will pull us through this in the direction we are meant to take.

Lets not fight amongst ourselves but work together, start building new.

In Solidarity to ALL

Shirley Klassen
President
Prince Albert SK
local 810

This is why it was so easy for Canada Post to offer job security to current staff: Canada Post knows that they will be losing thousands through retirement in the years to come. What will the loss of thousands of positions mean to those of us left behind? The Vancouver Mail Processing Plant already depends on casuals, extended hours and overtime to process the mail. My supervisor told my section a few days ago that he was disappointed that those clerks hand-sorting had not sorted to "expectations". I wonder how long it will take before CPC begins work measurement and disciplinary measures again? And, if forced overtime is used against letter carriers, will management also begin to use it to get the work done inside? Casuals can do some work, but there are areas (international, registration, PO5 work) where only employees with training can do the work.

Kathy Roczkowskyj
CUPW Steward, VMPP
Vancouver, Canada

CPC President, Moya Greene has went on record about job security and no layoffs, yet Mr. Lemelin has a different reality coming from the CTI (The demonized incentive system).

In the next few years, many workers will be retiring, but that doesn’t translate into layoffs for the existing membership.

Please, give me the full truth and all particulars on "The layoffs and firings totally 10,000 CUPW members."

I’ve paid union dues for 34 years and I want the complete truth.

David Barron
qualteam@rogers.com
www.barronblog.com

Letter to CUPW Members

Sisters/Brothers:

In the coming weeks, you will be asked to vote on the tentative agreement reached between Canada Post and CUPW. This agreement is giving rise to many debates. It has already divided the National Executive Board (NEB) into two camps. Now, it is dividing activists and grassroots’ members alike. How we conduct this debate will reflect the maturity of our organization in dealing with internal differences. And it must be conducted within our union structure. Today, it is with confidence and respect that I am speaking out to explain why I am one of the seven members of the NEB who rejected the tentative agreement.

My reasons for voting NO to this tentative agreement are easy to understand. I believe that the Corporate Team Incentive (CTI) should not be included in the collective agreement and that negotiations are not over. Here is why:

Corporate Team Incentive = The Moya Greene Clause

Everyone is against the CTI. We all know it is part of the employer’s agenda. Also, we are all aware of its consequences. The history of the entire labour movement can attest to that. We have to ask ourselves why does Moya Greene want the CTI in the collective agreement? In her letter dated October 23, which we all received at home and which I encourage you to read again, the President of the Corporation talks about the “need to make adjustments to the way we operate to continue to meet the needs of our customers,” about “employee engagement and recognition,” and states that “a poor attendance level can also be a symptom of disengagement.” She goes on to say “we need to address the current productivity gap that exists with our competitors and will be looking to improve our productivity levels. We believe some of these improvements can be achieved by partnering with our employees.” As you can see, the CTI is a key element of Moya Greene’s corporate plan. And we all know what the highlights of that corporate plan are: servicing the 200 largest postal customers and not the public, centralizing postal operations and eliminating 10,000 jobs over the next few years.

That is exactly what the CTI will help the employer do. It will enable the employer to bypass the union and appeal directly to the membership. Also, those who will be promoting the CTI, i.e. the supervisors, get an individual incentive. It’s the old carrot and stick approach. And if productivity increases only by 1%, how many jobs will be eliminated? By 2%? By 3%? This is unacceptable.

In my opinion, by accepting the CTI we are negating whatever positive impact all the other changes to the collective agreement may have. We must say NO to the CTI. That is the message we need to give Moya Greene.

Negotiations Are Not Over

At the outset of negotiations, the National Executive Board clearly laid out its strategy. It is described, among other things, in the bulletins dated September 21 and December 1st, 2006. This strategy was shared with you: trying to reach an agreement prior to the end of January 2007, otherwise apply for conciliation, then conduct a strike vote, and finally, strike if necessary. In my opinion, this is a winning strategy that is still relevant.

However, the employer made a final offer on February 2 and, following much discussion, it was accepted with division. At the National Presidents’ meeting that took place on February 4 and 5, 2007, I said that the employer’s ultimatum was unacceptable, that we needed to reject it and to go back to the table. It seemed impossible to me that we would end negotiations without calling on the strength of our membership and on our bargaining power. This is still my position.

Some will say that we are wasting precious time right now and losing momentum. That’s why it would have been better to go back to the table. Others will argue we’ll lose everything if we don’t accept what’s on the table. Yes, there is a risk. But rejecting the agreement doesn’t necessarily mean a strike. There are more pressure tactics we can use. We have to keep on negotiating.

There is also a risk for Canada Post. Saying NO also means putting the ball back in Moya Greene’s court. Can she afford raucous negotiations and a strike?

No to the Moya Greene Plan

As we all know, negotiations are an expression of the balance of power. The following question can still be asked: how far can we go? Like the other six members of the NEB who voted against the tentative agreement, I believe that negotiations are not over. For example, the surpluses generated by our labour should be reinvested into service expansion.

It is also important to understand that the current negotiations at Canada Post represent one vision of the public post office’s future clashing with another. In the current context, the best way for us to defend the public and universal public service is to say NO to the tentative agreement.

We must say NO to Moya Greene’s vision. I am convinced that this is the only way to rebuild unity in the union.

The Struggle Continues

Solidarity,

Denis Lemelin
2nd National Vice-President, CUPW
One of the seven dissident voices on the NEB

Pat Bertrand
Chief Negotiator
CUPW

Dear Brother Bertrand:

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Union's Chief Negotiator for taking the time to respond to my bulletin released to the membership in the Atlantic Region on the tentative agreement. I realize the hectic schedule you, the National President and other selected members of the NEC have these days crisscrossing the country trying to sell this agreement to the membership.

In your opening paragraph I find it quite troubling that you use the phrases like "truthfully and honestly" and "truth and honesty" to describe your view of how the membership should be able to decide whether or not to accept this tentative agreement. I agree wholeheartedly but from where I sit, there has been little truth or honesty thus far through this entire negotiations process. Judging by the language and tones of the negotiations update bulletins, one would have thought everything had been going quite smoothly. We have since learned that it was anything but.

From the very start of the process, there were signs these negotiations would be like no other before. The very decision taken to have you act as the Union's Chief Negotiator was fractured; essentially half the NEB was in favour and the other half against having you as Chief Negotiator. How ironic that a similar split on the board has resulted in the Union in the position it now finds itself.

Another sign of things to come was the National Union's rush to these negotiations. Although you try to argue such was not the case, how else does one explain the early notice to bargain from Brother Lafleur, or the fact our National President hand delivered a copy of our negotiations demands to the employer days before members in her own local, Fundy Local, exercised their "democratic" right to vote on the package? It seems the decision to "put all our eggs in the one basket" and achieve a new contract before the current one expired meant steaming ahead at any cost. I am quite sure the employer was well aware of our panic at the table.

Before I move on to the substance of your letter, or lack thereof, there is also the stigma to consider of the National President and 1st National Vice-President's meeting with Canada Post's Moya Greene and Mary Traversey in our National office during negotiations. Putting aside that such a meeting on the Union's premises is a violation of our collective agreement and the fact the National Union has not released any minutes of this meeting to the membership, the mere perception of this meeting during a time of negotiations raised not only the suspicions, but their ire of the membership as well. Long forgotten by the individuals concerned and those on the National Executive Board that support this meeting are the fact that we as members of this Union have both a National Constitution and a collective agreement to guide us in our interactions with the employer. This situation will be dealt with by the membership in the future at the appropriate time.

Brother Bertrand, you and other supporters of this agreement have been well scripted to say that should this tentative agreement be rejected it would result in the employer putting all their rollbacks back on the table. Without exception what is not expressed in these "truthful and honest" messages to the membership is the fact that the Union's demands, which were "touched" or dropped completely from the negotiations table, would be back as well. Small issues like Group 1 staffing, contracting in of work, protections for our wicket jobs and many, many more would be back in front of the employer.

The question begging for an answer is why and when did this Union ever become afraid of the employer at the negotiations table? Without ever going to the membership to ask them to undertake activities to put pressure on the employer or taking a strike vote that would have strengthen our resolve at the table, the Union was prepared to quit, walk away and recommend they accept the "final" offer.

As I was reading your response to my first point, "more pennies in your pocket", I thought it sounded like something I would read in one of the employer's publications. Whatever spin you put on it, $2.38 over the life of this 4-year agreement is pennies more. Quite frankly I am not focused on the employer's problems or care how much more the employer's "labour costs" increase; nor should you.

The shift differentials for those thousands of workers trapped on evening and night shifts across the country is an absolute disgrace. For the first increase in about 20 years, these pennies will do as much to deter the employer from moving more jobs off days to nights than us asking "pretty please don't move them". Shift differential is meant not only to compensate workers for the disruption of their lives, but also to deter the employer. What has been negotiated here can hardly be held up as some sort of victory for shift workers.

As far as the oversize admail is concerned, face the facts that these new dimensions will result in letter carriers carrying even more catalogue-sized admail.

I am unclear what your reference to "above the average settlement reached in the Atlantic Region in December 2006" is meant to mean. One should try to focus on the fact we are attempting to negotiate a National collective agreement, not a local one. If the Chief Negotiator is referring to the collective agreement ratified by the membership of the Bedford Local, please keep in mind the Union has continuously been able to negotiate real benefits including substantial wage increases for that membership, something we have failed to achieve for Urban Ops over the last several agreements.

Better Benefits? Only this Board could dress up an obvious rollback as a gain. Working for 15 years to have access to retiree health care benefits when all you had to do previously was work 10 is a rollback.

Improved Job Security, Partially - while it is true some new employees left out of the full job security of Article 53 will be protected up to September 2007, still leaves many more new employees out. The 186 positions that Canada post owes us from the previous collective agreement may be protected, but there will be hundreds more hired over the next four years who will not.

Enhanced Health and Safety - this tentative agreement has sold out our members working in smaller offices. I say sold out because the reality is our members in many of these workplaces could, and will likely have a health and safety representative that is essentially their employer, CPAA Postmasters and Postmistresses. Many of the other "gains" in health and safety are simply what are now found in the legislation, like "safety watchers" for Groups 3 and 4.

Better Staffing - as I and many more have already made clear, these 186 jobs were the result of the Corporation failing to achieve the ratio under the current collective agreement, not this tentative agreement. What is even more upsetting than portraying this as a gain during these negotiations, is the fact that the National President and Chief Negotiator left our National President's meeting and went straight to Canada Post to negotiate 25 of these jobs to grade 7 and 8 office without meeting as a Board first. More consultations with the same employer do not and never will create or maintain positions in this bargaining unit. Ask the Presidents in locals who have had their positions continually slashed by this employer what consultations achieve.

Seniority Calculated From First Date of Hire, But - can you explain what is meant by "employment relationship"? Is there some agreement we have on that? Up until now the National Union and the employer have been unable to determine what actually constitutes a break in the employment relationship. How does this agreement language apply a fair standard for all?

Protection of the Postal Service - so almost 10% of our retail counters are left unprotected and subject to closure. This is no highlight.

The projects we put in front of the employer have always been viable and ones which protected the service and created jobs. As we were told at the National Presidents Meeting, it was the employer who turned thumbs down to all 42 Union proposals made under the current collective agreement. Are we suddenly dealing with a brand new employer whose word is gospel? While they have obviously convinced (or scared) some at the National Union, the membership knows the truth about their employer all too well.

Major Improvements? to Demands we Never Had - our demand for a new job description for lead hands did not mean taking everything the employer has them do now and make that the job description. Rather than determine what lead hands currently do and negotiate a job description that makes sense for the workers, this new job description only serves the interest of the boss. Adding 51 cents/hour differential will only further separate this group of PO4s from their brothers and sisters; that's why it was an employer demand!

Vision Care Benefits Increase - stretching this benefit over a four year period means that members who utilize their entitlement in the initial period, as most will, will mean waiting another 3 or 4 years before being able to use the vision plan.

More Studies and More Joint Committees - there have already been studies on oversize sortation stools; ones which the employer failed to act on. What is irresponsible is agreeing to yet another study and spending $100,000 which could be used elsewhere.

The "Apple-A-Day Committee", while voluntary, is yet another employer demand and is designed to have the employer get through the front door what they could not squeeze through the back. For years the Union has grieved and been successful against the employer "wellness programs" and now we agree to have these entrenched in our collective agreement.

Irregardless of whether you support this tentative agreement or oppose it, the mere acceptance by our negotiators and the majority of the NEB, over the almost unanimous objections of local presidents, has shown the employer our internal divisions. The resources the Union has, and continues to spend trying to make this tentative agreement so much more than it is, only compounds our struggles.

Members are asking how we find ourselves in this position and what do we do now? Since we can not turn back the clock to a time when the National Union listened to or knew its membership, our only recourse now is to defeat this tentative agreement and go back to the table. We go back to the table knowing this membership will not accept a contract filled with employer language, joint committees and partially achieved demands.

Rather than taking the time to attack locals for their democratic right to voice opposition to this agreement, I would urge those National Officers who support it to spend their time and energies trying to strengthen this membership instead of further weakening it. I certainly hope the NEB has a plan for the likelihood of the membership rejecting this offer and does not simply plan on repeating the single-minded, narrowly focus negotiations strategy which has proven to be an utter disaster.

In solidarity,
Jeff Callaghan
Education & Organization Officer

Please take the time to come out to one of the meetings to hear the presentation and be part of the decision making process. Unlike the federal or provincial election process with its system of ridings or constituencies, each vote within CUPW carries the same weight regardless of which part of the country it is cast. The final results of the national vote will be issued on or about April 23.

Some local executive committees, in line with their established practice, have put forward their own recommendations on whether members should vote yes or no. Our local has traditionally not added its own recommendation to that of our national union. On national referendum votes individual local officers and shop stewards within our local are at liberty to oppose the recommendation of the National Executive Board if they wish.

The inclusion of the national Corporate Team Incentive (CTI) in the employer's final offer has resulted in a circumstance where the National Executive Board (NEB) was far from united in its decision to put this tentative collective agreement to a vote. While there was unity on the desire not to have the gains achieved contingent on acceptance of the CTI, the difficult decision in terms of strategy was whether to move to a strike vote and possible strike action to get rid of the CTI and attempt to achieve more of our demands, or not jeopardize the progress made in this round of bargaining by instead dealing with concerns within the Union about a possible change in attitudes or behaviour amongst postal workers caused by the CTI and quality of work life initiatives. The NEB opted for the latter strategy.

Upon reflection, there is no doubt in my mind that the CTI in and of itself will not change the day to day existence of postal workers. It is clearly not part of any wage restraint or alternative to a real wage increase, but a national bonus pay-out. Whether we see any money or not is unknown, and is beside the point. The size of Canada Post Corporation and all the countless variables that determine success or failure in areas like profit, service performance, and absenteeism are clearly beyond the control of any individual postal worker or group of workers in any location. I think our members understand this fact. Fuel costs, weather, airline schedules, bad management decisions, flu pandemics, urban sprawl, government policy and the general state of the economy are just a few variables at play.

The key question which I have considered is whether rejection of the tentative agreement and subsequently going into a strike situation could result in more of our demands being realized. Withdrawal of our labour power means withdrawal of postal service to Canadians. Our issues need to be understood and supported by people in our community. A strike with the CTI as a central issue would be a mistake and do serious harm to our credibility as a defender of public postal service. There is no doubt that when we place more of our demands on the table the employer, as it promised, will place their job cutting demands back on the table.

In 1997 the strike issues were clearly defined to the public and were about jobs and service. That strike ended with legislation by the Liberals as it was moving into the Christmas mail season. The last time we ended a walkout with more than was offered by the employer before the strike was in 1981. Since then our progress has been achieved on those occasions when the employer bargained to avoid a strike to ensure the Corporation's financial health was not jeopardized. This was the premise behind the present tentative agreement. I am not convinced that given all the circumstances and unknowns we face, we will be in a position to win more. A strike of some duration will reduce mail volumes and revenue for sometime, with the result that we could emerge with less that is before us now and a more precarious future.

In Solidarity,
Keith Jeworski

Starting with your last point first: why don't you want to explain "all the reasons" for accepting this tentative agreement? You seem to have trouble grasping the fact that as a result of ignoring the overwhelming views of the National Presidents' Meeting, some members of the NEB made a decision to present this tentative agreement to the membership and this has given rise to a national debate on this issue.

What you call "grand standing" is part of a very important discussion which will allow members across the country to have more information and opportunity to debate, than they ever had before to make an informed decision. Everyone should participate in this debate and respect the right of members to have access to all the information as opposed to keeping the discussion restricted to a few chosen "leaders" in some boardroom. Are you suggesting that you have some information that the membership at large is incapable of understanding? I think this is wrong and I would urge you to abandon this view that some "leaders" are more qualified to decide what is best for the workers than the workers themselves.

Once again your e-mail is full of vague generalities and very short on specifics. This makes any meaningful discussion very difficult. I remind you that we had 72 demands and all you can come up with are a few "major breakthroughs". By the way, just because you have declared that we have made advances doesn't make it so. It is your responsibility to explain why it is a "breakthrough".

For instance, I fail to see what is so great about the proposed wording for Article 54. We know that the corporation has some serious plans to stop recognizing the rights of disabled workers to be accommodated. At the local level they are putting processes in place to justify what they call "undue hardship" for the specific purpose of stopping accommodation and sending disabled workers home on sick leave. We know that this is a violation of the Human Rights Act but I don't see how the proposed wording or the deletion of 54.02 or 54.03 helps us in any way to fight for the rights of these workers to be accommodated .

Regarding staffing grievances, you should know that the issue I raised is not about what happened thirty years ago. You have direct knowledge of the last three rounds of negotiations which resulted in the systematic gutting of Articles 39.02, 39.03, 39.04 and 39.05, effectively limiting the ability of Locals to file staffing grievances. In our Region alone, many Locals have been advised not to file staffing grievances if the ratio in Appendix P is maintained nationally, and only a Local like Ottawa, with the resources to handle our own grievances are filing limited staffing grievances.

Its unfortunate that you are pleading ignorance about the National Presidents' Meeting. I'm sure it was a difficult time for you but if you have forgotten the significance of that event I would be very happy to sit down and walk through it with you.

Brother, it takes a critical situation like this to test the strength of one's principles and character. Your opinions on the value of debate and differing opinions inside the Union are now on the record so it is clear that your pretentious talk about being inclusive and respecting all opinions equally, really means nothing to you.

I realize that this is a frustrating time and you are getting desperate, but there is still no place in this debate for your unfounded and unprincipled accusations.

In Solidarity,
Louis [Lang]

Why are the leaders of the NO side not demanding a strike vote NOW? What are they AFRAID of?

We know we just can't send the negotiating committee back and expect CPC to fold like a deck of cards. Moya Green is a visious anti union capitalist boss. She is not our friend.

The NEB will not listen. Even the 7 "NO" NEB members are not calling for a strike vote. They don't want a contract but they act like they are too afraid to call for a strike vote. They want to send the neg committee to BEG Moya for some more. Stopping the BEGGING and prepare for the STRIKE!!!

Louis Lang, Dave Kenny, Mike Duquette, Jane Marsh, Ken Mooney STOP  DECEIVING THE MEMBERS into thinking that the BOSS is their friend and will GIVE them more if we only ask politely. It is time for you and every other "NO" local president to demand that the NEB cancell the ratification vote and hold a strike vote. Stop whining about the NEB. Stop begging the Boss to GIVE us more. Start preparing for the STRIKE.

J Collins

Union reps should not worry about the CTI
turning workers against each other.
The needless division that they themselves are
causing now is our gravest concern.

It is extremely alarming to watch those who have years of experience in dealing with our notoriously anti-union employer sending such mixed signals to the membership when postal workers need Real world leadership now more than ever.

Case in point- As our local President attempts to portray herself as the champion of union principles; she must accept the fact that she sorely lacks credibility. It was through Jane Marsh's incompetence that none of the contract demands submitted by Toronto local members were ever forwarded to national for this round of negotiations.

Yet she had the audacity to recommend a "No" vote to the demands submitted by the rest of the country at Toronto's ratification vote last year. Of course when the ballots were counted the member's intelligence prevailed, as Toronto overwhelmingly voted "Yes" in support of our negotiating team.

Obviously she and the other officers now d-i-v-i-d-i-n-g the rank & file have a lack of faith in the membership when it comes to taking Moya on and beating her at her own game. I firmly believe that together we are fully capable of dealing with Moya or any other corporate hack we are saddled with.

After months of DEFEANING silence - Marsh has now simultaneously issued 3 bulletins:

1) The first names the other locals and national officers recommending a "No" vote. I would like to take this opportunity to remind Jane that as Toronto's President her one and only responsibility is to the best interests of the members within the Toronto local. Not to lead us over a cliff because others are posturing!

2) Her 2nd bulletin is exclusively "Good old days gone by" & anti C.T.I rhetoric.

3) Her third bulletin states that "We want the membership to know that our position to vote no was not solely based on the corporate team incentive." Yet 4 out of the next 5 paragraphs are all about the CTI? Furthermore, this bulletin was co-signed by Joanne Leader (2nd Vice-President Toronto local) who was given the golden opportunity to join the main negotiating team to represent Toronto's best interests, yet in keeping with Marsh's hypocrisy she declined the offer and has now joined the dangerous political posturing.

In this same bulletin Marsh & Leader also appear to have a problem with simple arithmetic? They state that "We would probably only see $200-400 annually." When in fact with our 1st raise the gross payout of the CTI at 3% (for a P04) would be just under $1,400 in pension-able money.

I urge you to take this as a prime example of why
You need to take the time to find the facts behind the rhetoric.

And despite Marsh's repeated assurances that "A no vote is not a vote for a strike." The following is likely:

-If the agreement is defeated. Moya (who is not known for backing down) has already stated that "The C.T.I is a strike issue" would stand her ground and invite the CUPW to secure a strike mandate. This would eventually put us on the street losing 2, 3, 4 weeks of pay (Fighting against a bonus?) while being ridiculed coast to coast in the press as lazy clowns.

The only thing left to do then?
Wait for the inevitable back to work legislation and binding arbitration.

-Arbitration would also put all of Canada Posts original rollbacks back on the table. Even if we eventually ended up with a middle of the road contract, we would surely suffer foolish losses and still have the CTI.

The simple fact is that we are being irresponsibly baited into killing a contract with
NO rollbacks, a 10 1/2% raise, shift premium increases
Increases to benefit payouts without premium increases
Long awaited improvements for letter carriers
Improved health & safety language etc…
In order to accomplish what???

There are times to fight and times to use your head!
There is nothing to be gained from a strike under these
particular circumstances and much to be lost.

We presently have thousands of new members with thousands more to be welcomed into the CUPW fold during the four years of this agreement as thousands retire. I have no doubt that Moya is planning major rollbacks in 2011. However, I would rather have four years to communicate, interact with these workers while Moya`s changes to our shop floors expose her polished words as lies, than to foolishly play into her hands now.

In Solidarity,
Steve Killy

Let intelligence prevail - Vote "Yes" and begin preparing for 2011