If the membership of the CUPW vote “no” to the collective agreement, then the employers’ final offer will be removed from the negotiations table and all that goes with it. Unfortunately, all the initial rollbacks which the employer had on the negotiations table, as their contract demands, will be placed back on the table. At this point, the Union may have to proceed to a strike.

What is reflected above under the yes column will certainly take place if the membership vote ”yes”. The no column indicates potential outcomes, given the experience of this Union in the past.

Many members can remember past conflicts where the Federal Government has intervened in our “strikes” and has introduced “Back to Work Legislation” in an effort to interfere in our collective bargaining.

History tells us that this Legislation contains language which is always detrimental to the Union and which forces both the Union and Canada Post to submit their disputes to a third party, normally in the form of an Arbitrator or a Judge.

Past experience demonstrates that negotiated collective agreements between the parties are always superior to collective agreements that are imposed by a third party.

During unsuccessful negotiations in the past, the Union has resorted to strikes in an effort to force the employer to conduct itself in a manner which best benefits the entire membership of the CUPW-STTP. There has never been a “local” strike, all strikes are National in scope. Any collective agreement negotiated will be a National Collective Agreement.

If the parties (CUPW/CPC) can’t agree on a collective agreement, it is normally within the discretion of the Arbitrator/Judge to impose contractual language/benefits/wages on the parties. If you recall, in 1997, the wages that postal workers ended up receiving, were less, than the wages the employer was offering, prior to the strike.

VOTE “YES”

In solidarity,
R. Stallberg
Regional Grievance Officer
Metro-Toronto Region, CUPW

The following is in response to your bulletin “The Membership Will Decide if the National Executive Board Settled” dated February 12, 2007. Yes, the membership will decide. But the membership is entitled to decide based on all the facts. The union and all its officers have a responsibility to relate the facts truthfully and honestly. The members may accept or they may reject this tentative agreement. This is democracy. But they must make their decision based on truth and honesty. You also accuse the NEB of rushing to reach an agreement. As you know we applied for conciliation in January. Under the Canada Labour Code we will be in a legal strike/lock-out position in mid April. At that time our collective agreement will no longer be in effect. The Employer has made it clear this is their final offer and it is conditional on there being a settlement without a strike. If there is a strike they say they will put all of their rollbacks back on the table. We do not know if they are bluffing. We believe it is a good agreement. As such it is necessary that we go to the membership. If it is rejected we will need to immediately receive a strike mandate.

I will attempt to correct your ten points.

1. More “pennies in your pocket”:

You refer to the financial increases as “pennies”. During the four years the Corporation’s labour costs will rise by approximately $800 million. In the fourth year the employer’s labour costs will have increased $300 million annually. I am sure you will agree this is more than “pennies”.

The negotiated wage increases for groups 1 and 2 total $2.38 an hour. That’s a 10.9% increase over the life of the four year collective agreement. For Groups 3 & 4, the increases total $2.69. For MAM 10’s it’s an increase of 11.2% and for MAM 11’s it’s an increase of 10.9%. The wage increase is above the national average and above the average settlement reached in the Atlantic Region in December 2006.

The “few more pennies an hour” are not for just working midnights and weekends, but for evenings as well. The 20% increase in shift and weekend premiums, the first increase we have been able to achieve in over twenty years, represents an increase of about 1% in take home pay.

You suggest that members will get “a few cents” for “even bigger householders.” In fact, some of the unaddressed admail sizes have actually been reduced. For example, the 6” X 14” size has been reduced to 6” X 12” with an increase in payments of more than 13%. Business householders that were 10” X 14” are now reduced to a maximum of 9” X 12” and members will get more money for delivering them. We’ve also achieved new time values. (see bulletin 44)

2. Better Benefits:

Yes, members will now have to work 15 years to be entitled to post retirement benefits for the rest of their lives but you neglect to mention that members who reach ten years of service by December 31, 2007 will continue to be eligible for retiree benefits. You also forgot to mention the improvements in coverage for naturopaths, acupuncture, speech therapy, osteopaths, podiatrists and hearing aids. You also neglect to mention that all drugs will be paid at 80%.

3. Improved Job Security, partially:

Every member who is a regular employee at the signing of the collective agreement will enjoy full job security. As well, every person hired as a regular employee between the date of signing and September 1, 2007, will also be entitled to full job security, including the 40 km protection. This is the first time that the Union has been able to achieve full job security for employees who were not regular employees on the date of signing.

4. Enhanced Health and Safety Protections:

Letter carriers will enjoy greater access to carts as of the signing of the collective agreement. The study, which will be completed within one year of signing, provides an opportunity for the union to identify the best possible carts for letter carriers to use. In the meantime, the employer is obligated to purchase 1000 carts to supplement their current inventory.

Health and safety representatives in offices with less than 20 workers will be CUPW members, appointed by the union, unless we fail to appoint one. In that case, the code will apply. Currently, many workplaces with less than 20 employees have no on site health and safety representatives as they are covered by umbrella committees.

5. Better Staffing:

We have negotiated language that will ensure:

• a minimum of 25 full-time positions created under Appendix P will be allocated to Grade 7-9 offices
• ongoing consultation must maximize full time positions in those offices
• better staffing information will be provided to the national union and to locals to allow us to build better files for staffing grievances.

6. Seniority calculated from first date of hire, but:

As I recall, you were opposed to the seniority referendum. But in any case, 80% of the membership gave the NEB a strong mandate to correct an injustice by amending the collective agreement to ensure that seniority is calculated from the first date of hire. Six months is a reasonable time frame to ensure that members’ seniority dates are adjusted in line with what has been negotiated.

Seniority rules must be fair for everyone. If a member did not have an employment relationship with Canada Post for a period of more than 9.5 months, that will be considered a break in service.

7. Protection of the Postal Service:

The fact that we have been able to increase the number of CUPW staffed offices that are protected from closure is an important achievement. The increase means 91% of all retail outlets where CUPW members work are protected from closure. We also succeeded in negotiating mandatory pilot projects under Appendix T to improve and expand service to the public and create jobs for CUPW members. It is now our responsibility to ensure that these projects are viable and good for public service so that they may be rolled out permanently in the future. .

8. Major improvements? To demands we never had:

Actually, the union did have a demand for job descriptions for retail lead hands. Their job descriptions had not been amended since 1985. In order to achieve the new job descriptions, which were put together by the union in consultation with lead hand members, we agreed to the employer’s demand for increased wages.

9. Vision care benefits increase:

Vision care benefits are still accessible every two years. Members will be able to choose to spread their increased benefits over four years if they want. You also fail to mention that we have negotiated coverage for laser eye surgery.

10. More stool studies and more joint committees:

Implementing stools at oversize cases without a study would be irresponsible. The $100,000 study, paid by the employer, will ensure that the use of stools does not increase risks to our members.

The wellness program that you refer to requires the union’s agreement and is completely voluntary for members.

In conclusion, the NEB’s recommendation will be put to the membership as soon as the draft collective agreement is printed. Surely you aren’t suggesting that the membership should be asked to vote without the agreement in their hands?

Although all the members’ demands were not achieved in this round of bargaining (they never are…) the tentative agreement touches on over half of them, and contains many major improvements on issues that were identified as priorities of the membership.

I hope this clarifies some of the issues that you may have misunderstood.

In solidarity,
Pat Bertrand
Chief Negotiator

Montreal Local Executive Committee
Union stewards
Alternates
Committee members

Sisters/Brothers:

When we met, at all levels of the decision-making process, we set objectives for this round of negotiations and you gave me the mandate to obtain them.

Here were the priorities for the Metro-Montreal Region:

1. Objective: The employer cannot recover workers' compensation benefits, provided claim was not made fraudulently.
   Tentative agreement:  A letter that formalizes how we deal with lost cases at the various levels of the CSST (WCB) claims process in the Quebec and Metro-Montreal Regions.
2. Objective: Address the issue of over-burdening in Group 2.
   Tentative agreement: Despite some improvements in time values for householders and overtime on own route (new appendix), the Corporation has not recognized Montreal's particular problems.
3. Objective: Sufficient staffing in Group 1 (internal).
   Tentative agreement: We did not resolve staffing problems in Group 1. Some 186 positions will be created because the Corporation did not maintain the ratio (Appendix "P"). These jobs are owed to us under the provisions of the 2003 collective agreement. The mechanism that would be put in place in the proposed 2007 collective agreement is a consultation process.
   

Groups 3 and 4 An insufficient bump up of a few cents and some other points still need clarifying if we return to the bargaining table.

The Corporate Team Incentive and the Union's orientation:

Your union officers cannot accept this incentive because it violates the National Constitution (including, but not limited to, policy B5). Accepting this incentive would be like agreeing to industrial democracy schemes.

An unresolved issue:

Appendix C-1: Memorandum of agreement on the grievance backlog.The parties agree to extend it until January 31, 2011 (grievances filed prior to 1992).In the fall of 2006, a $2.5 million settlement was on the table. The employer withdrew it at the last minute.This was to be resolved at the bargaining table, but the only settlement possible by mutual agreement was to renew Appendix C-1.

Here is a partial list of issues the Negotiating Committee will have to negotiate should the tentative agreement be rejected.

• Services to the public (counter-offer of January 15)
• Longevity pay
• Staffing mechanism for Group 1
• Health and safety
• Job description, lead hands
• Article 24 (full protection), priority in Montreal

Three days only after the collective agreement expired, we were given an ultimatum - a take it or leave it deal. At ratification meetings, union officers will explain the different ways of looking at this agreement. You will hear the pros and cons.

For my part, it is clear that I cannot recommend adoption of the tentative agreement because it does not meet the mandate that you have given me. If we reject the tentative agreement, we will be able to return to the bargaining table with clear confirmation of the mandate given by the members.

The struggle for a decent collective agreement continues…

In solidarity,
Pierre St-Hilaire
National Director
CUPW - Metro-Montreal Region

I am going to try to answer your three e-mails but I don't think that this discussion should be restricted to just the two of us. As I have said earlier there is just too much at stake for all our members!

First I am going to translate the e-mail below so everyone can participate in this discussion.

You say:

"I see that you are concerned with internal staffing and that makes me very happy.

But the question is, how many grievances have you filed in Ottawa to win back jobs? Have you tried to organize franchise outlets or private companies that do mail preparation?

These are just a few examples. Louis, you disappoint me. You are propogating partly false information. I am ready to meet you anytime.

Solidarity
Donald"

In another e-mail you say that my bulletin is full of errors and one example you site [sic] is that "householder weights and thickness per item have not increased".

Geoff and I had lengthy discussion about the bulletin a couple of weeks ago which was helpful in clarifying many issues but it seems to me that the way you are posing the problem is quite different. The impression that I get from your e-mail is that you are not so much concerned with clarifying issues but more interested questioning my credibility. This is very disappointing because I have noticed that members of the NEB who are in favour of the tentative agreement have stopped presenting their views in a respectful manner and instead are participating in a campaign of slander and character assassination and your e-mail certainly fits that description. You should keep in mind that even if you prove that I am incompetent and not committed to this union and its members, you are still left with the same problem - the trentative agreement that you are supporting falls far short of the demands of the members and gives the corporation the CTI, which is a mechanism to attack the collective rights of workers and will be used to try to divide the membership.

Faced with the opinion of the National Presidents' Meeting, which by the way is a consultative body recognized in our National Constitution, and the overwhelming opposition of Local Executives across the country you have a responsibility of explaining yourself (here I am referring to all those on the NEB who are recommending acceptance) instead of throwing out wild accusations against certain individuals.

You say that I am spreading false information without anything to support your accusation. Is this your idea of debating respectfully.

You say that householder weights and thickness have not increased but you have carefully avoided the issue of overburdening of letter carriers and how this tentative agreement will contribute to this overburdening. I am not the only person to have raised this concern. The President of the Vancouver Local for instance, pointed out in his bulletin that the tentative agreement allows the corporation to "increase the dimension of unaddressed admail by up to 29% (9" by 12")" and many others have said the same thing. Are all the concerns being raised over this issue unfounded or are you not telling us the whole story about what the full effects of this agreement will have on the overburdening of letter carriers?

You should know better than to accuse the Ottawa Local of failing to file grievances on staffing issues. Over the years we have filed tens of thousands of grievances on the abuse of temporary hours and the elimination of full-time positions with a lot of success. It is true that the opportunity to grieve staffing issues has gone down but that is because over the past few contracts article 39 on intrenal staffing has been dismantled. You spoke at several ratification meetings in the past in favour of changes to article 39 which left the Locals defenseless against the constant cut-backs in internal staffing carried out by the corporation. The last contract which you were so anxious to support included the notorious Appendix P which weakened article 39 even more and many Locals were advised not to file staffing grievances because the corporation had met the required ratio nationally. Inspite of this advice, we continued to file staffing grievances and fought the arbitrations on our own and our Grievance Officer, Brother Woods successfully argued that even if the corporation maintained the ratio in Appendix P they were still responsible to maintain adequate staffing. As a result of that arbitration we forced the corporation to combine part-time positions and create full-time positions.

If you are so interested in staffing grievances please tell me where you were when the NEB was convincing the members to accept a $15 million settlement for tens of thousands of staffing and other backlogged grievances and in return the Union agreed to drop all the staffing grievances in the system. In Ottawa alone, there were close to 60 staffing grievances that were wiped out with the stroke of a pen.

Another of your accusations deals with our involvement in external organizing. We have a responsibility as a union to organize the unorganized but not at the expense of abandoning those workers who have fought so hard and long for the benefits that we now have. The greatest contribution we can make to all workers whether organized or unorganized is to fight to maintain and improve our wages and working conditions and not allow the corporation to destroy what we have won.

If you have any other questions about the activities of the Ottawa Local I'll be very happy to deal with them.

In Solidarity,
Louis Lang

Dear Brother Devine:

I am writing to express my profound disappointment and shock that you were one of the members of the NEB that voted to put the “ Final Offer” from Canada Post to a ratification vote of the membership of CUPW. In fact, I am equally dismayed that there was a vote by the NEB on this at all... What could you and the other members of the NEB have been thinking?

It was clear from the reaction at the Presidents’ Meeting that the overwhelming majority of the locals in your region, and nationally, were unanimous in their desire to have the negotiating committee go back to CPC’s negotiators and ask that the CTI be removed and much better language reached on the PT/FT ratio in smaller offices, no matter what the consequences. That was the conclusion that was relayed to the floor by Sister Bourque on Monday, when the discussion was centred, on her request, on how to explain our decision to refuse the offer to the membership, and how to prepare for a strike.

As Brother Kuehnbaum said at the Toronto Airport, on Monday night, to you, myself and Brother Guenette from Timmins “ There’s no doubt, we’ve been given our marching orders...we have to prepare a response to this offer.” So, brother, what happened behind closed doors over the next three days?

It now appears the two days of discussion at the Presidents’ Meeting was a waste of time. To that point, one of the earlier speakers on Sunday pointed out that she felt a mood of fear and intimidation coming from the national leadership in our union and that she also felt, this opinion being echoed by later speakers, that the NEB and Brother Bertrand, to paraphrase, were fear-mongering to scare the leadership at the local level into accepting this “final offer.” Frankly, the first speaker to the microphone, Brother Buckland, RGO for Atlantic Region, nailed the issue when he stated we should not even be discussing the offer as the inclusion of the CTI violated Section B-1 of our Constitution.

It became apparent to me shortly after the Presidents’ Meeting began that a significant portion of the NEB had its mind made up to accept this and they were hijacking the agenda to push the issue. I’m proud of the way the floor pushed back and the local presidents united to tell the NEB to trust them to deliver the MESSAGE: to their local membership as to why we could not accept this agreement and we had to go back to negotiate on the two outstanding issues.

So at the meeting of my local last Wednesday, I did just that, and those in attendance, and there was a good turnout, all understood why we had to turn the offer down, that in doing so, there was a real risk it would result in a strike and that the best way to avoid this was to go on the shop floor on Thursday morning and wear the “No CTI” stickers and send the boss a MESSAGE: that the membership was ready to stand up against the employer. Brother, they wore their stickers, they explained the issue to members who were not at the meeting, and I was proud of them and proud to be their president.

So you can probably now understand my sense of profound betrayal and embarrassment, along with humiliation in front of the employer, when I learned of the unexpected decision of the NEB and your personal decision to agree to send the offer to a vote of the membership.

Although I was initially embarrassed and humiliated, I realize that I am on the right side of this issue and that I believe the membership will do the right thing when the time comes to vote and reject the offer. The membership will have the opportunity to send the employer a MESSAGE: that, while it appears the boss can intimidate the leadership of our union, they can’t bully the rank and file, who, believe it or not, can actually understand the seriousness of an issue when they are provided with the opportunity to have it explained to them.

I have to say that throughout the three days we were in Toronto at the Regional Conference and the Presidents’ Meeting I was left with the uneasy feeling, an impression that I initially chose to ignore, that you might be in favour of accepting the deal. I chose to ignore it because I didn’t believe you would do that. At no time I was with you, or discussed this issue with you and others in your presence, did I hear anyone else say they were in favour of accepting the offer. On Monday, you went to the microphone and you stated to the assembly that, to paraphrase, “ we have to go back to the locals and figure out how to sell this to the membership.” I thought you were talking about persuading the membership of the reasons we could not accept the deal and why we had to go back to the negotiating table, not how we were going to persuade the membership to accept the offer, because on Monday, that option was closed.

So, was I wrong? If you did mean you were in favour of putting the offer to a ratification vote, I and others would have jumped all over you, right then and there. But I didn’t think that because that’s not what you said then and that’s not what you were saying Monday night at the airport.

Apparently you told Brother Louis Lang, President of Ottawa Local, that you decided to vote in favour due to pressure for “small locals” in the region to accept the offer. Is this true and who were these locals? How and when did these locals contact you when you were in caucus with the NEB. How many were there?

If it is true, that is, in my opinion, nowhere close to a valid reason not to demonstrate leadership and remind these small locals of the consensus reached at the Presidents’ Meeting.

In conclusion, it was far to early in the game to jump at on offer, just because CPC was delivering an ultimatum. As Brother Arbour said so eloquently, “every offer from CPC is their final offer.” He also stated that we were early in negotiations and it was too early to get jumpy. I left the Presidents’ Meeting under the belief that the plan of action was to go to conciliation, where we would have been in the driver’s seat, telling the conciliator that we want to refuse a $60 million clause on principle. We were also supposed to devise a media strategy, also a golden opportunity for us. Lastly, we were to leverage our political supporters to ascertain the whether or not the Conservatives would allow CPC to provoke a strike.

The Executive of the Sault Ste. Marie Local will be voting against this agreement. I am going to recommend to my membership that they reject the “Agreement in Principle” from CPC, because, with the inclusion of the CTI, it is based on a lack of principle. I will also work to persuade the other locals in this region and nationally to reject the offer as well...I would be astounded if I’m the only president and the only local contacting you or the NEB-I’ve already seen Sister Holmes’ letter to Brothers Lemelin and Arbour.

I take no pleasure in writing this letter, brother. We have known each other for many years and I have always supported you. But your, and the majority of the NEB’s, decision to ignore the will of the overwhelming majority of local presidents and regional full time officers, and the consensus of the floor at the National Presidents’ Meeting, to vote in favour of putting the agreement to a vote of the membership is simply unacceptable and I will not ignore it. The tail of this union should never wag the dog!

I await your reply...

Peter Denley
President
Sault Ste. Marie Local
CUPW

Below is a letter I sent to Moya Greene on February 23, 2007, regarding the Corporate Team Incentive. I am posting it here in hopes that it will bring my issue with the CTI to all members, but especially to all temporay employees. If any members who read this could alert all the temps in their office to check it out, we may get a lot of the newer members out to the ratification vote and hopefully put their voice with mine. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Forest McCready

Dear Ms. Greene,

Just a few days ago, I received your letter outlining Canada Post's desire to have all of its employees treat each other with respect and civility and to embrace a team-like focus towards our business of delivering the mail. While it is commendable that the Corporation would like to improve its relationship with all employees, for God knows, Canada Post has had a less than favourable labour relations history, I find this new initiative rings quite hollow in light of the fact that the Corporate Team Incentive, just introduced into the tentative C.U.P.W. agreement, will not provide any bonuses to the temporary employees of the bargaining unit.

How do you expect to foster an atmosphere of respect and cooperation between management and the workers when, from the very first day of employment, temporary employees are shown that they are second class employees in the eyes of the employer, with less pay for doing equal work, no health or dental benefits, no sick leave benefits and now, no CTI bonuses? The paltry 4% Supplement in lieu of benefits that temps receive doesn't begin to cover the costs involved with health and dental care.

Temporary employees can hardly be expected to feel like they are part of the "Team" when denied any CTI benefit for the hard work they put forth to help you achieve your corporate objectives. In fact, your temporary employees are, by and large, your most dedicated employees, since they receive no pay for days of illness, resulting in most temps coming into work faithfully, even when sick. I know, for I have done it many times.

There is no argument that most temps desire to achieve a permanent position with Canada Post, but this process can take years, depending on work location and staff turnover. In my case, now a temp for over eleven years, I choose to remain a temp but, am I not entitled, after eleven years of service, to be considered part of the team?

In the Royal City Local, there are 53 temps on the list and the top 17 have been employed for at least one year. The top 5 have been employed over two years. This means that all of the temps coming through this local can expect at least two years as a temp, with second class employee status. How does this encourage a new employee to adopt a positive attitude to the job or his/her employer? Actually, this two year wait time will get much longer in this local now, since the Corporation decided to remove all of the entry level part time MSC positions from New Westminster to Vancouver, virtually closing the door to temps here, unless they are willing to change locals and commute more than 100 kilometres a day into Vancouver.

Frankly, I can not express strongly enough my disgust with Canada Post for treating temporary employees so shabbily. To also deny us any benefit from the CTI is nothing short of a slap in the face. Where is the respect you talk of in that? I strongly doubt that many of us will be willing to go that extra mile for "the Team". I might even stay home the next time I become ill.

I will be encouraging all of the temps in my office to vote NO to this collective agreement and I will also be forwarding this email to my local C.U.P.W. President and the C.U.P.W. National Office asking them to ensure this message gets out to the thousands of temporary employees across Canada.

When this tentative agreement is rejected, as I'm sure it will be, for there are many other issues the membership have with it, I hope your negotiating team will show the temporary employees of Canada Post a little more respect than they have seen in previous contracts.

Sincerely,

Forest McCready
Abbotsford Delivery Centre,
Abbotsford, B.C.

The Corporation has created directors, general managers, customer insight programs, whole departments and lately videos and response cards to service instead the needs of "our paying customers". They've done surveys and study groups and have now convinced "our paying customers", through these videos, to tell us themselves how we need to work harder and faster delivering their flyers. Not only does this make great business sense for Canada Post but also for "our paying customers" and their employees and the families of their employees and one could assume the friends and acquaintances of those families and in turn all the people of the world. Sure, your walk is way over structured, you've come to work sick, it's 25 below zero and you have 8 sets of junk mail to deliver. None of that makes much of an impact compared to the fact that possibly the entire human race's happiness and prosperity depends on the delivery of that 2 for 1 pizza coupon. A little further along in the article this responsibility is taken to new heights as mail carriers become "Ambassador(s)of Sick Kids". We become directly responsible for finding the next breakthrough to ease the "suffering of terrible diseases". And I thought Canada Post did it for the money.

There is one part I'm a little confused about. I get the fact that our "paying" admail customers call the shots and it's about way more than commerce. The fate of peoples lives hangs on our every action. I get all that. And certainly Canada Post has gone above and beyond the call of duty in it's creation of programs, departments, managers and "education" of it's employees as the very future of the post office hangs in the balance. The part that's hard to understand is this. If all of this is so very important, why, under the proposed Collective Agreement will I only be payed an increase of less than 1/3 of a cent above the 2 cents I have been making for the last 25 years? And when it is absolutely clear to everyone that the addition of admail to a route is like the difference between day and night, why is it that we never receive values that reflect this reality? I'm no "former general manager of Take to Market, Take to Company", but if you want someone to work hard you have to value the work properly and pay accordingly.

Would you like to improve our admail service Ms. Greene? You sure seem like you want to. Here's a suggestion that will actually work. Forget the programs, departments and videos. Start by allowing real values to be given to admail work and double the payments. Simple, easy and effective! You'll find you won't even need to tell us what a good job we're doing. Your thanks will be apparent in collective agreement language, not in meaningless bulletins and Performance editorials. I think the problem lies in the fact that Ms. Greene doesn't really understand the day to day experience of a worker. And that may be where the commonality comes into the picture. Either does Ms. Bourque.

Ms Greene at least has the excuse that she has never worked "parcels" or "incoming" or a mail route for that matter. So how could she know. She tends to get jobs that pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to get rid of jobs like ours and where one showers before they go to work rather than after. Ms Bourque on the other hand, may have simply forgot. In her letter defending the proposed C.A. it becomes clear that she has lost touch. In a convoluted and "corporate speak" paragraph full of semantics she attempts to argue that "..the CTI is not a measurement of productivity.." and that "CTI results do not necessarily reflect or correspond to productivity changes". These comments, along with others, are an attempt to argue whether or not the proposed C.A. is technically in violation of our constitution. While she argues technicalities, it is clear to see that the spirit or intent of the policy has been completely violated. But perhaps most telling in her letter are the following comments: "Although it may be argued that the CTI is a "QWL" scheme, the Union is neither participating in or cooperating with the CTI". And "The Union will not promote the CTI and will not be involved in it". By accepting it as part of the proposed C.A. and recommending that C.A. to the membership, Ms. Bourque is "promoting" the CTI. And maybe she won't be "involved" with it, but as a worker and shop steward I figure I'll be "involved" with it on a daily basis as the employer uses it to divide us and push us harder still.

So as Ms. Bourque wastes time defending a bad decision, Ms.Greene continues to make more of them. Although, they might not be so bad for her personally. If she can get us to push each other and do more work with less people there might be a big fat bonus for her. And with the new "Access to Information" club, maybe we can find out just exactly how big and fat that bonus is. But in the meantime we have more important things to do. At the top of that list is to let the membership know that this is a sad excuse for a new collective agreement and it's time to go back to the table and try again. I don't think the people on our behalf negotiating this or the last collective agreement for that matter are "bad" or corrupted or don't give a shit. I do think they have been away from the workfloor for far too long and they have started to believe in the make-believe corporate world of profits and bonuses and "Customer Value Management Idea Centers". These QWL schemes have nothing to do with improving the working conditions and lives of the workers. On the contrary, they are designed to hurt us and we refuse to have them enshrined in our collective agreements. If Canada Post wants to make that a strike issue, let them. That's what working people do.

David Frevola
Shop Steward Nova Local

David Barron, Toronto Exchange Office

Over the last 13 years, I've seen local presidents and locals throw their hands up in the air on the National Executive Board's "Tentative Agreements". Locals appeared like they were being excluded from negotiations and agreements were being made without consultation of local executives.

This has been going on for a long time and many National Conventions have come and gone without this problem being addressed. There seems to be two unions. One at the national level going one way and one at the local level going another. This is discord. This is lack of unity. This is weakness.

This has been going on a long time. You can't have two different unions negotiating with management. Surely, at National Conventions, ways could have been suggested to clear up local discord before anything becomes a "tentative deal".

We all know in any negotiating round, the union can only make so many gains before the big hammer of the Government gets activated. Usually negotiations go down to the eleventh hour before a deal is reached.

However, the fact still remains that the negotiating committee decides if more can be achieved from further negotiating or a strike.

If the local unions are in communication with the NEB, they can see progress or not. However, I can't see how they're participating or how local CUPW members are participating. Is there anyway to give feedback or do a poll on an issue?? No, it doesn't happen in CUPW.

There's no way the locals can fire the present negotiating committee and get another one.

I don't remember any tentative agreement being turned down.

If the National President tells CUPW members that's all they can get from Canada Post Management, how can we not believe her. From many years of experience, CPC doesn't negotiated further at a certain point and waits until a Government arbitrator decides what's in the new contract and what isn't.

Again, this is a failure to solve these problems in the CUPW constitution and the negotiation process. The NEB has complete control to accept "tentative agreements" without the approval of a majority of locals.

Next, there is the divided vote from the membership, some agreeing with some locals that we can get more out of further negotiations and/or a strike and some agreeing with the NEB that we can't.

If CUPW is now fighting amongst itself about what can be achieved and what can't, it's in a weakened state and I wouldn't send conflicted negotiators back to the negotiating table.

We can't really get good deals with CPC or Government arbitration if we're battling with each other. Conflicts must be resolved before a tentative agreement is reached.

I've waited 13 years for the NEB and locals to resolve these negotiating/solidarity problems. Nothing has changed. The battle continues between CUPW members.

I'm voting yes on the tentative contract.

Sincerely,
David Barron (Toronto Exchange Office, PO5, 34 Years Of Experience)
qualteam@rogers.com
www.barronblog.com

Bob "The Postman" Stubbs, Nelson Local

Thank you for your comments on bulletin number 42.

I will try to respond to some of the concerns that you have raised. I have attached your e-mail so that others can follow my responses to your questions.

Regarding stools, the language on the stools study for oversize sortation cases states "the study will review if the case design can be practically modified to accommodate the use of stools in a manner that will not increase the risk of musculoskeletal injury during the retrieval, sortation tie out process.” This study will be funded to a maximum of $100,000 and the parties will jointly select a third-party ergonomic expert for this study.

Article 33.26 (b) of the current collective agreement gives us the right to propose an acceptable solution regarding oversize sortation cases “which the Corporation shall not refuse without reasonable justification to the particular problem posed by this equipment.” , The Union would have a right to file a grievance should the employer refuse to implement a safety device such as a proper stool for oversize cases. This approach taken at the negotiation’s table was based on your opinion which you have expressed both to brother Lapointe and sister Karas prior to start of negotiations on this subject. You expressed concerns that the stools might be introduced without knowing if more H&S problems could arise from the use of stools and felt that a study would have to take place in order to assess the potential risk to members.

Regarding the Local Joint Health and Safety Committee structure, as you know the Union did not have a demand on this issue.

It is my understanding that yourself and Brother Arbour were in consultation for the last five to six months trying to reach an agreement on the structure for local joint health and safety committees. It is also my understanding that the corporation was sticking by its position that the provisions of the Canada Labour Code would apply.

As you are also aware, the reason why we needed to change the health and safety structure was because of complaints that had been received and an HRSDC ruling that health and safety committees were not fulfilling the minimum standards under the Canada Labour Code. It is also my understanding that these complaints came from the union. Be that as it may, the National Grievance Officer suggested, and the National Executive Board agreed, to try to negotiate a structure without an actual demand. We decided to use the demand for a regional health and safety committee as an opportunity to get into the discussion of the Local Joint Health and Safety Committee structure.

This LJHSC structure contained in the tentative agreement was negotiated with the National Grievance Officer and legal counsel working with the negotiations team. It was also my understanding that the National Grievance Officer involved you in these discussions.

I will respond to a number of issues but I suggest that you also speak to Brother Arbour for a copy of the specific language.

Nothing in the language prevents us from grieving any health and safety issue at the local national level so we should be able to move as quickly as we have in the past. Your previous bulletins have instructed locals to file a grievance if health and safety issues haven’t been resolved within three months. It also my understanding that part of the training for health and safety committees is to make sure they are moving issues through to the regional level if they can not be resolved at the local level.

The individual health and safety representatives do have to come from the workplace that they represent and they will receive the same amount training as committee members

The language that we’ve negotiated clearly does not permit members of APOC to represent our members on health and safety matters even in workplaces with multiple bargaining units. The language stipulates that the union health and safety representative will be appointed by the Union. Only if the Union fails to appoint will the Code apply the code does not allow a member of management to represent CUPW.

We have agreed to regional consultation rather than regional health and safety committees. As I said earlier, the demand for regional committees was simply an avenue to raise the LJHSC structure in the absence of a specific demand.

It is clear that there will have to be more than one health and safety committee in larger workplaces in order to comply with the Code. It is also clear that in the long run more members will be trained to be health and safety representatives.

I hope that this addresses some of your concerns. You should have a look at the actual language and speak to brother Arbour about any concerns I have failed to address.

Sorry that it has taken me so long to answer as I have been busy over the last few weeks.

In Solidarity,
Pat Bertrand

It is clear that there is a serious problem with internal staffing and if we don't put anything in the contract we have no way to stop the corporation from forcing fewer and fewer internal workers to do more of the work. In spite of this there is nothing being proposed for internal staffing but more consultation. Already the corporation has not maintained the proper ratio of part-time to full-time workers. This means that we are already short full-time positions . Add to that the use of temporary workers and the high level of overtime that is required. With many members near retirement there is nothing in the Collective Agreement which forces the Corporation to fill vacant positions.

This also applies to Retail outlets where we are severely understaffed and unable to compete with franchises that the corporation is opening with the goal of closing more Retail outlets and forcing more PO4's to go back to plants on evening and night shifts.

The very small improvement for householder values is not going to adequately compensate letter carriers for the extra weight of thicker householders and makes letter carriers vulnerable to higher rates of serious injuries.

The proposed wage increase of 2.5, 2.5, 2.75, and 2.75 is totally inadequate and is below the national average of wage settlements in the past year.

There is a roll-back on the eligibility for retiree benefits. The years of service required for eligibility has been increased from 10 to 15 years.

Off loading trucks in the parcel model is to be added to the duties of PO4's and PO5's. This will result in the loss of MSC positions across the country where the Parcel Project has been implemented.

There are many other areas where the agreement is weak but the most damaging part of the agreement is the ACorporate Team Incentive@. In reality this is a productivity based bonus of 3% which is based on four targets: customer value index, financial performance, delivery service and employee engagement. If the bonus is ever paid it is a lump sum and never becomes part of the wage.

The productivity bonus has two aspects to it. First, it should be looked at in terms of the idea or the concept that it represents. Second, is the actual way it is going to be applied. Both aspects are extremely dangerous for the union and our members.

The Corporation wanted this productivity bonus to be part of the Collective Agreement at all costs. They gave the Union an ultimatum that if we don=t accept this article then all other issues that had been agreed to during negotiations would be off the table.

Why is the Corporation so intent on getting this concept into the contract? The answer is simple. This is not a contract demand, this is a demand that the Union change its policies and orientation.
The National Policies of the CUPW contained in our National Constitution state under B-1 that AThe Union rejects all forms of wage restraints, whether in direct form or indirect, such as ATaxation Incentive Programs@ or productivity-based increases@.
This policy is not negotiable because if it is abandoned then we are also abandoning the basic principles on which Trade Unions were founded.

The purpose of a Union is to fight as a collective for the right of workers to proper wages and working conditions which we deserve because of the work which we perform. Unions put an end to the days when workers faced their employers as individuals with no power to assert their rights.

The fact is that at Canada Post, like every other corporation, all the profits, all the wages paid, all the facilities and property of the corporation, in other words the entire functioning of the corporation is made possible by the value which is created by the workers in the functions which they perform. When we ask for a wage increase or an improvement in working conditions or benefits, all we are asking is that a small portion of the value which we have created be given back to us for our benefit.

The goal of the corporation on the other hand is to seize and control as much of the value produced by the workers as possible, giving the bare minimum back to the workers. This is why the interests of the corporation and the interests of the workers are always diametrically opposed. The corporation is always trying to fool the workers into taking up their agenda to try and get the workers to sacrifice some of their demands for the Asurvival of the company@; this is just another way for the corporation to control more of the value which the workers have created.

The productivity bonus (CTI) is just such a plan. By including it in the contract we are conceding to the corporation that the value that we have produced belongs to them to use as they wish and we are also agreeing that the corporation has the right to impose any conditions they wish before the workers receive any benefits from the very value which they have produced. This is far worse than any quality of work life program which the corporation has tried to impose in the past and which the union has always opposed. It is no wonder that the corporation is so determined to have this in the contract - it eliminates the very basis on which workers put forward their demands for negotiations and the end result will be to pit worker against worker under the pressure of the productivity bonus.

As far as the actual implementation of the CTI, it also fraught with danger. Whether it is applied nationally or not it is based on four criteria which are completely out of our control. ACustomer value index, financial performance, delivery service and employee engagement@, these are all based on the policies adopted by the corporation without the workers having any input. When they cut back on letter carrier delivery in favour of group boxes, or when they decide to cut back on service for first class mail in favour of addressed and unaddressed admail, or when they purposely keep retail outlets understaffed these all adversely affect all those categories on which the workers will be rated. Canada Post is making these decisions in order to maximize the profits of monopoly corporations both foreign and national. Under the CTI workers will be measured according to how well they carry out the agenda of the corporation. This undermines the struggle of workers to fight against privatization and deregulation and to fight for the kind of national economy which is in the best interests of the vast majority of Canadians.

The most pernicious of all is Aemployee engagement@, which includes among other things - attendance, workplace injuries, grievances and participating in all kinds of quality of work life schemes which the corporation introduces to try to get workers to ignore the rights which they have in the collective agreement. The corporation is already using the " attendance management program@ to put pressure on workers not to exercise their right to use sick leave. In addition they are routinely challenging the right of workers to compensation benefits for work place injuries. One would have to be hiding their head in the sand to miss the wild statements made by the leaders of CPC regarding cutting back sick leave benefits or eliminating the responsibility of the corporation to accommodate workers who have become disabled. Does anyone actually believe that they have forgotten about these plans to attack workers rights?

No, they have not forgotten, that=s why they want the CTI because it is the most effective way to step up their attacks. With this mechanism in the Collective Agreement the corporation will be provoking workers to put pressure on each other to stop exercising their rights, with the corporation dangling the carrot of the CTI always out of reach.

This agreement is clearly unacceptable. The contract has just expired and it is the height of irresponsibility to create this artificial emergency and ask the members to vote now based on the fearmongering and ultimatum threats of the corporation. The conciliation and arbitration process outlined in the Canada Labour Code has not been used and certainly the strength and determination of the members, the most important element in negotiations, has been ignored in the decision to end negotiations prematurely.

To defend the hard won rights of postal workers we must say Ano@ to the tentative agreement and get back to negotiating a Collective Agreement which deals with the concerns of the workers.

Louis Lang
President, Ottawa Local
Canadian Union of Postal Workers
February 12, 2007