Below is a timely article taken form the Cape Breton Post, 16 Feb 2007. At a time when we as CUPW members are expected to swallow the CTI (performance bonus) the Nova Scotia government is scrapping the idea of performance bonuses. Our wages are nowhere close to the deputy ministers but the priciple remains the same, a real wage increase exchanged for principle. Treasury board Minister, Angus MacIssac states "...to help ensure the quality of (service) we must offer competitive salaries for these (senior) positions."

//signed//
Robert Garnier,
Secretary Treasurer

Nova Scotia raising pay scale for senior government officials

I have concerns regarding your latest bulletin.

The issue of the stool study is presented however what will become of the results? Are there provisions to implement the results of the study in the language?

After all, we were dealt a very tough lesson when Canada Post decided that they did not like the results of the McMaster study.

Your explanation of the new health and safety structure is lacking information.

You have not included:

• This structure involves more than just Local Joint Health and Safety Committees
• The substantial number of individual Health and Safety Representatives that will be required.
• Does the Health and Safety Representative have to work in the installation that they are representing?
• The huge impact that this will have at the Local level.
• Those smaller Locals may have the current committee dismantled.
• Those larger Locals may have a reduction in the existing committees.
• You have only mentioned training of the LJHSC members. What about the training of Health and Safety Representatives?
• The issue of the individual Health and Safety Representatives meeting alone with the employer.
• The issue of should we not be able to appoint and/or elect an individual Health and Safety Representative then the employer then has the legal right to designate someone
• The issue of multiple bargaining units in an office with less than 20 employees – are we about to repeat the same occurrence that we have been desperately attempting to correct with the RSMC Members in CPAA offices? The Code is silent on this issue. It would be tragic if we were in a position where we were represented by APOC Health and Safety Representatives.
• How will the transitions from one structure to another take place? What will happen if someone has been elected by the Local Union to a Committee that no longer exists? How will health and safety concerns be dealt with?

You have indicated that, “Where a committee is unable to resolve a problem, the matter will be sent to regional consultation before being sent to the National Joint Health and Safety Committee”. Have we bound ourselves to a process that will impede the resolution of health and safety matters? What happens if the issue is urgent and we want to deal with the issue in an expeditious manner? Currently, the Union decides how best to deal with the issue by using the options available to us. I believe that Canada Post will use this as a stalling technique to avoid dealing with issues.

What became of the demand of Regional Health and Safety Committees?

You have indicated that the parties may agree to establish other Local Committees. How is this supposed to occur? You have indicated in your bulletin “The structure we have negotiated is better than might have been imposed by HRSDC or agreed upon through consultation”. Yet, we are going to continue to consult on additional Committees. Not only do we have to get Canada Post to agree we must obtain approval from HRSDC.

It is my opinion that this “new” structure is not a gain but a roll back. This structure was something that was gained in the early nineties and for some reason we could not expand on what was achieved then.

This will have a direct impact on the representation that our Members will receive on the issues of health and safety in the workplace. As the employer constantly attempts to turn health and safety into wellness programs and delves into behaviour-based safety, the representation that our Members receive on the floor is vital for the protection of their rights and well-being.

Meeting nine times a year – this is not a gain. This is taken directly from the Code. Canada Post does not respect this requirement now.

Inspections – not a gain, a provision of the Code.

Safety Watchers – this issue was close to resolution at the NJHSC.

So Brother, when you refer to gains, I am somewhat puzzled. Yes, there have been some gains but I believe that the rollbacks that we have accepted far outweigh the gains that have been made.

I believe that it is important to ensure that Local Representatives and Members understand what lies ahead for them should this agreement be accepted.

In Solidarity,
Gayle Bossenberry

"Both in terms with its struggle with the employer and in terms of its orientation within the Labour Movement, the Union rejects all forms of wage restraints, whether in direct form or indirect, such as "taxation incentive programs" or productivity based increases." (emphasis added)

In supporting the CTI, which is clearly a productivity-based increase, we are in direct violation of our Constitution. There are good reasons why such programs are opposed by our Union.

Management has said the CTI is a strike issue for them. They want this program bad. All the other bargaining units at Canada Post have agreed to this program and some now are wishing they hadn't. Management wants postal workers to agree to an incentive of 3% each year for meeting Corporate performance targets. The incentive could be less than 3%, or nothing if targets are not met or more than 3% if targets are exceeded. The CTI, or Corporate Team Incentive, is currently based on meeting Canada Post's targets for its customer value index, financial performance, delivery service and employee engagement.

The targets are determined solely by management. The terms and conditions of the incentive may be changed each year by management. The Union has no right to grieve these changes. The CTI is a lump sum of money; it is not as good as a wage increase. With a regular wage increase your hourly rate raises every year; it is cumulative. The incentive payments disappear after it has been paid; it does not get added to your wage, like a wage increase does. The CTI does not increase the amount you make for working overtime like a wage increase does and, more importantly, the incentive is discriminatory. It is not paid to people who, for example, are on disability insurance or to our temporary employees. Also, it is very likely that the CTI will pit worker against worker. Under the "employee engagement" portion of the targets, there are absenteeism and accident frequency targets. Clearly, if members of your unit or installation are not performing "up to snuff", they may become targets of their co-workers. Overall, the CTI is not a good thing.

LOOKING BEYOND THE CTI

Let's take a moment to look beyond the CTI and at this tentative agreement as a whole. In September 2006, the National Union put out the negotiations Perspective. The following is an excerpt of the preamble from Sister Deborah Bourque, National President. She states, "We believe this program is both focused and comprehensive. While it does not deal with every problem we face at the workplace it does address the major issues affecting postal workers in the areas of job security, wages and benefits, staffing, and working conditions."

Clearly we were asked to focus our demands going into this round of negotiations. There were some 800 resolutions submitted by the locals to the National Union. From there, following the National's wishes, these resolutions were narrowed to 72 demands. Out of these 72 "priority" demands, 47 were not achieved and 13 were only partially achieved. There are virtually no gains whatsoever in the area of staffing for Group 1 employees and nothing for temporary employees. Let's look at some of the demands that were not achieved:

• No contracting out
• No opening of private sector franchises after January 31, 2007
• Contract in work (including maintenance, combined urban services, highway services, etc.)
• Reduction of weight limits for all groups
• Improved night recovery leave
• Eliminate three years' service requirement and standardize the entitlement for all groups including temporary employees
• No employee shall be required to undergo a medical examination by a CPC designated physician
• Groups 3 and 4: no exams or test to obtain promotion or transfer provided the employee has the qualifications
• Amend Appendix P (staffing ratio for Group 1) to allow Union to grieve staffing violations of 39.02 and 39.03 and add a mechanism to ensure full-time positions are maximized in smaller offices

These are only some of the major demands the Union had that were not achieved this round of bargaining. Please, don't be fooled. Vote NO to accept this tentative agreement! Clearly, we can do much better with the strength of the members behind us!

In solidarity,
Kevin Buckland
Regional Grievance Officer

Lets us not forget our original position when we entered into negotiations. Our negotiating team accomplished less than half of the demands, 32 of 72, with absolutely nothing in the final offer for Group 1 workers. Canada Post's president, Moya Green, and her negotiation team were adamant about keeping the CTI high on the list of CPC demands and did so to the final hour of negotiation. For this reason there was no agreed settlement prior to the end of the collective agreement, 2400 hrs 31 January 2007.

This lone CPC demand and its potential fallout provoked the union leadership and forced our hands so we sent a strong message to the NEB & NEC at the President's Meeting to reject CPC's final offer; no to the CTI and no to the final offer. CUPW's focus is avoiding conflict on the work floor, the future of junior members and very concerned about the long-term survivability of our union. CTI will ensure these three issues are attacked; our solidarity dismantled and productivity increased in all areas of the work floor.

A very great concern, stated by Atlantic Region RGO, Kevin Buckland, was the fact that fundamentally the CTI is in direct conflict with our union's National Constitution. Article B-1 reads, "…the union rejects all forms of wage restraints, whether in direct form or indirect, such as "Taxation Incentive Programs or productivity-based increases." CTI had to be rejected for the interest of all CUPW members on this basis. CTI is a union busting scheme, pure and simple that will lead us down the garden path to privatization!

I've kept the membership informed with the bulletins as they've been sent. I've kept an open mind and weighed both sides of the argument. Yes votes of the NEB have been swayed to NO votes through vigorous debate at the national level following submission of the final offer. The final vote on the tentative agreement of the NEB was 8 to 7; this is not a clear direction what so ever. I thank the union leadership who has dissented with the NEB's recommendation, as the union of the future needs this kind of vocal leadership.

I believe that some of our union leadership, NEB, has 'Cow-Towed' to Moya Green and her minions and now a clear direction must be taken by the rank and file members. We, as a collective, must return to our militant foundation to ensure a future for the new permanent, part-time and temporary employees of our union. Personally, I stand against this latest offer because; it is portrayed as a victory when in reality the CTI is a union busting tool that will eventually destroy us as a collective.

Granted, the work of the NEB & NEC was grueling with many long hours served in negotiation but I feel there is a disconnect between our union leadership in Ottawa and the individual member on the work floor. I feel the divide has grown ever wider with no sense of a cohesion or grass roots base with the NEB hearing but not listening to the membership. The long-term survival of our union is in danger with this tentative agreement! We must send our negotiators back to the table to rid us of this dreaded CTI for a real wage increase. The only way we as rank and file members are to have a voice is vote No to this tentative contract.

When the ratification votes are held, vote NO on your ballot, vote NO to the CTI, and vote NO to union busting! With this no vote, the membership votes yes to the long-term survival of this union, votes yes for fairness and votes yes for a future! Leave something behind for the next generation of postal workers, as they may very well be your children. The struggle continues…

In Solidarity,

Robert Garnier
Secretary Treasurer
CUPW, Breton local # 117

I voted No on the recommendation of the National Executive Board (NEB) to accept the employer's final Global Offer. I recorded my dissent. I will be encouraging the membership of the Atlantic to reject the recommendation of the NEB.

The main reason I registered my dissent is that this proposal, now tentative agreement, violates our National Constitution. It is productivity bargaining, no matter which way you dress it up. We are compelled by B-1, among other policies, to reject this type of bargaining. The National Constitution is also very clear in our Policies that the defense of the interests of the membership by attacks from the employer is paramount. There is no question that this CTI is a very subtle attack. Subtle like a hammer.

The inclusion of the "Corporate Team Incentive" or CTI, is Canada Post's major play to bust CUPW and divide the membership even further. This is the "biggie" of all Employee Engagement programs, because the honey on the stick now has money attached to it. Unacceptable. We have known ever since our convention and since Moya Greene's appointment that we would be facing perhaps the biggest fight ever at Canada Post. Should we put that struggle - to protect our jobs, to protect the postal service - on the backburner because of this agreement? No.

The National Executive Board, throughout the "fast-track" negotiations process made a commitment to strive to negotiate an agreement before the contract expired on January 31, 2007. We were prepared to negotiate beyond if there was a good agreement in the cards. That didn't happen. Canada Post's so-called final offer was an insult to the process. I believe, as others do, that we should have gone back to the table and continued our efforts, without this CTI. We have received ultimatums from Canada Post before and we rejected them. We have been there before. We fought, collectively, with the strength of the membership. We have been there before too.

As the National Director for the Atlantic Region it was absolutely critical for our membership that any new collective agreement included improvements in staffing. Ever since our Area Councils and even before that - staffing had been identified as the root cause of problems our members face. I cannot support this collective agreement on that issue alone. It does nothing to address this major demand. The current contract already has a consultative process and it doesn't work for smaller offices.

As one of the members of the NEB who voted No, I understand that it carries consequences - that we must mobilize the members. I understand that we would have lots of work to do with the members, explaining why we rejected this proposal, why we need to go to a strike vote if Canada Post stays firm on their ultimatum, and why it is so important for the future. Our youngest members are the members who this contract will affect the most and we must defend their future. The Presidents Meeting made it clear to me that local presidents understood their role and were prepared for that mobilization.

I voted No in order to defend the Union.
I voted No in order to defend the postal service.
I voted No in order to defend our future.

In solidarity,
Fred Furlong,
National Director Atlantic Region

I have been a member of the rank and file of CUPW and LCUC for almost 35 years. In most of these years CUPW has been a cutting edge union, leading the labour movement to better wages and benefits.I can not believe the level we have fallen to in last two contracts.

Our present leadership is actually recommending that we accept our employers offer of a corporate team incentive in our new contract.The leaders of the past must be flipping over in their graves if they are no longer with us? If they are still with us I hope they will
speak up because this is too big to remain silent.

If we accept this, the corporation will think of us as nothing more than a company union. We "MUST" organise a NO vote campaign to fight this insanity. I don't know what possessed our NEB to think that the membership would accept this?

I am sending this e-mail to every local that has a e-mail address and every member that I know. Please pass these thoughts on to any members that you know. We have to fight this
with everything we have or it will end in a disaster for everyone who works at C.P.

Four targets: The CTI is based on the corporation's performance in four categories: customer value index, financial performance, delivery service and employee engagement.What on earth is employee engagement???Ask every member to think before they vote,and encourage every member to get out and vote "NO"!! This is way too important to ignore?????

In Solidarity,
Wayne Adamson
Local 854
Williams Lake, BC

I joined this Union about 6 years ago and started being active almost immediately. I enjoyed meeting new people and the thought of being able to fight the employer and achieve something positive for the members was very addictive. I knew that I had a lot to learn but was confident that once educated I could make some positive changes. At one point I looked up to the present leaders of our union and one day I had hoped to perhaps be in one of those positions. I thought that our union had “teeth” and would not back down from any battles that came our way. I was confident that if we all stood together that no matter what the outcome justice would prevail. I was blind in thinking that our Union was not politically motivated. That was until the President's meeting!

The President's meeting was a big eyeopener for me because not only did it make me open my eyes, it also made the scenery a little less appealing. I went through a lot of phases that weekend from feeling scared to angry and then scared again. The one thing that I was confident about was the fact that the majority of the President's on the floor felt the same way as I did. One sister from the Atlantic got to the microphone during the President's meeting and said that she felt like she was having an “identity crisis”. I believe that I echo her words, however she is lucky in one way that I am not. She is lucky to have the support of her National Director on her side. No matter what happens from now on at least she has the backing of her National Director. In the Central Region, now that's another story! For the majority of the weekend I felt that our region was on the same page. From huddled conversations to speaking at the microphone I thought that our region expressed our points of view clearly. We were against the CTI and we wanted to have something in the tentative agreement about internal staffing. When our National Director got up to speak about trying to “sell this to the smaller locals”, I thought the way others did in the respect of sending the committee back to negotiate something better. I had no idea that he meant trying to sell the CTI to the membership.

When the results of the vote came in early this week and I found out exactly how our National Director voted my jaw dropped. Was there some missed communication that I had not been privy to, or was there something more? How was it possible that the National Director of the Central Region could have voted against his very own membership? I'm still confused at the reasoning, but I'm wondering if it is not out of character. Our region has a National Director that has proven himself untrustworthy, so I have to ask myself, did I expect him to vote with us? Perhaps in the grand scheme of things there is a rational reason for his vote-all things considered, I doubt that.

So where do we go from here? That is a very interesting question with a number of options. Personally, I am going to vote NO to this proposal. I am the President of a small local and I know that I will have my hands full come our monthly meeting. The majority of the members in my office have fifteen years of seniority or more, so trying to convince these members that the proposal isn't in their best interest may be difficult. However, with a lot of education and some frank discussion of the ramifications I believe that my members will vote with me. I make no excuses for how I feel and I understand that perhaps some of the members in my Local may not feel the same way, but they will never be able to say that they weren't given all the education they needed to make an informed decision. Another thing to note about my Local is that they will have never have to wonder how I feel about this proposal. Unlike our National Director, I will be very upfront about how I feel and how I am voting. My members will never have to feel sold out or abandoned. I am sure that a lot of the President's in my region feel that their National Director has decided to abandon them and jump on board with the minority.

In closing I would like to say that I am going to be rejecting the proposal when it comes time to do so. I am also throwing my support behind Sister Gwen, Brother Peter and Brother Louis of our Region. I am also supporting and standing in solidarity with many others across the country in opposition of this farce. It takes strong people to stand up against something and it takes even stronger people to ask the tough questions in the hopes of getting some real progress. I appreciate all the work that the negotiating committee has done – but it’s not enough. Our region in the past has also had issues with members voicing their opinions and standing up for what they believe in. All I have to say to that is if I am never allowed to attend another educational then at least I will be able to sleep at night knowing that I stood up for something that I believe in! I wonder if our National Director is tossing and turning at night!

VOTE NO!

STAY STRONG!

Erin McGrath
President – Pembroke
Central Region

In all good consciousness, based on my feelings and experience, I can not recommend this Collective Agreement to the membership and as such voted no and recorded my dissent.

I am a National Officer and am accountable to the membership across the country but in particular to the members and Locals in my Region. As such, I try and review all the information provided by the Negotiation Committee based on the wishes of my constituency, the Local leadership and membership of the Prairie Region.

The Union members and activists in the Prairie Region have a fighting spirit and they have the courage to stand up for their beliefs. They take pride in the work they do as part of a public service and they believe that they are entitled to respect, dignity, safe working conditions and good wages and benefits. They have said that they are prepared to try new things if it leads to improvements in their working lives but they are not prepared to give up the rights and benefits they have acquired over the past 40 years. Not without a fight!

So when I look at the proposed Collective Agreement and I weigh the benefits against the losses, the achievements versus the demands we originally voted on, I have to decide whether the gains are substantial enough to accept or if we could achieve more in a strike.

Eight members of the NEB believe that this is the best we can do. I respectfully disagree.

I believe that our internal members have tried too long to keep offices running without enough staff or relief and they are wearing out. CPC has not addressed this issue in an honest or meaningful way.

I believe that letter carriers are being overburdened by the corporation's drive to deliver admail and the only way to ensure that we can provide the service without harming our members is to have proper values that reflect the real workload. CPC refuses to adequately address this issue.

This Collective Agreement contains dangerous "team" provisions that will have a long term harmful effect on the membership.

I believe that the CTI is an illusion that hides an insidious goal by Canada Post to lure us into sacrificing our rights and our solidarity for the promise of some unsubstantiated bonus. The membership has correctly seen through this Corporate Team Insult - or as some have described it - Coercion Through Intimidation. It is nothing more than 30 pieces of silver - payment for selling out our rights in the future to "improve productivity."

I believe that CPC's new Health Risk Prevention (Wellness) is a way of escaping their health and safety obligations. Instead of pretending to care about us they should deal with the poisoned workplaces they have created and stop demeaning and humiliating members by sending them to corporate doctors when they are injured or ill.

If they cared about health and safety they would accept our proposal on Health and Safety Committees and paid representatives to be proactive and to advocate on behalf of the membership. They should stop denying special leave when we have personal needs to deal with. If they cared about our well being they would find ways to create more day shift positions so members on night shift had a chance to escape.

There are important gains in the proposed contract and I don't blame anyone for agreeing to take the easy road and accept what the corporation is prepared to hand out. But I don't believe they are offering enough, despite the good work done by our Negotiating Committee.

We asked the membership to limit their demands so we would only have priorities to deal with and the members reluctantly agreed. The members also realize that in the process of negotiations we never get all that we want or all that we deserve but it is our chance to make improvements and position ourselves for the future.

There is a risk in saying no. The risk is that we could end up with the same or less at the end of the day. The risk is that we could be legislated back to work and have an arbitrator imposed on us like Judge Richard who was inadequate and inappropriate to take on the task of arbitrating a contract. There is a risk that some of the corporation's business may leave and never come back, putting them in a weaker financial picture.

But there is a risk in saying yes to a contract that is not exceptional at best and dangerous at worst. It is a risk to our future and our orientation. It is a risk on the integrity of the bargaining unit. It is a risk that can not be ignored and I feel I have an obligation to raise it for you.

The danger of changing the nature of our relationship with the employer by engaging in unnecessary joint initiatives means that our Constitution is compromised. It means that newer members can more easily fall into a trap of believing that our goals and the employers are the same. Those of us with experience and who understand the deceptive and dishonest nature of the employer will not be moved but the employer is setting up for the future. Their reach is long and their goal is not for today but is for the next decade.

So do we just stand by and take what we get or do we say that we need substantial improvements in staffing and relief, in our working conditions, in proper evaluation of our routes, in protecting our personal dignity, in protecting all the retail jobs that we currently hold.

The boss wouldn't agree to add protections in Article 56 from psychological harassment, bullying and abuse of authority so how committed are they to fixing our poisoned workplaces.? They had agreed in principle to our demand to train all employees under Appendix HH but they walked away from that even though they know it is necessary. They prefer to let a crisis develop and then over-react or under-react to it so it means they have no intention to fix our workplace. In fact they intend to set the groundwork for more harassment and stress by implementing an "incentive" program that will have us at each other's throats in a few years time.

Sometimes a contract is not all about how much money we can get. Sometimes it is about defining our future in a way that allows us to have more than the grievance procedure to right the wrongs in the workplace.

Our opportunity to achieve that is during negotiations and in this round, we have not corrected the inadequacies. Our Committee beat back many of the boss's rollbacks that CPC put on the table. Now it is up to our membership to decide if it is enough, or if we can, through our ultimate power, beat back the arrogance, incompetence and abusive actions by the boss that we live with on a daily basis.

In a few weeks the members will make their decision based on their individual needs. But our collective needs and our collective strengths are at stake. They should never be sacrificed.

Unlike some, I can not recommend to you that this contract being proposed is the best we can achieve or that the CTI is just something that we can accept and hope to deal with at a later date. I have an obligation and responsibility to tell you how I feel so you will have a number of perspectives to consider before you make your decision. I take all my obligations to the membership and the Union very seriously.

Your Sister in the Struggle,
Cindy McCallum
National Director
CUPW Prairie Region

I am very sad to advise you that the NEB voted one hour ago to accept the negotiation committee recommendation and accept the employer’s last offer. I respectfully disagree with the majority of the NEB. I do not recall a time when the NEB was prepared to take something to the members with this kind of split but the National President and the Chief Negotiator both believe that it is a good collective agreement and will defend the decision of the NEB during ratification votes.

Those of us who voted against and registered our dissent were:

Cindy McCallum - Prairie Region
Fred Furlong - Atlantic Region
Denis Lemelin - 2nd National Vice President
Philippe Arbour - National Grievance Officer
Pierre St Hilaire - Montreal Region
Pierre Bernier - Quebec Region
Gerry Deveau - Ontario Region

I imagine that there will be a bulletin issued today or tomorrow by the Chief Negotiator to advise the members of this decision

The NEB will re-convene on Monday to deal with our vote on recommending this deal to the members. I will dissent again at that time. I will also release my bulletin on Monday and would ask that you circulate so our members will also understand why I have taken the position I did.

Your Sister in the Struggle,
Cindy

I have just received word from brother furlong that the neb has voted to accept the recommendation from our negotiations committee. The vote was 8 yes and 7 no with all seven, including Fred, registering their dissidence. The 7 members who voted to turn down the employer’s offer for the sake of the membership and for the integrity of this union were:

Brother Fred Furlong, ND Atlantic
Brother Pierre Bernier, ND Quebec
Brother Pierre St. Hilaire, ND Montreal
Brother Gerry Deveau, ND Ontario
Sister Cindy McCallum, ND Prairies
Brother Denis Lemelin, 2nd National Vice President
Brother Philippe Arbour, National Grievance Officer

This vote will not serve to unite our membership or strengthen the National Union’s resolve to fight the employer and his strategy to break us. If some of our National leadership will not challenge the employer, violating our constitution in the process, it will be up to the real leaders of this union, the rank and file to take up the challenge to fight the boss. All 5 Atlantic Regional Officers are in opposition to this board’s decision. It was clear at our meeting over the weekend the majority of presidents and full time reps opposed not only the cti, but the many other short falls of the employer’s “final” offer. Instead of going back and telling the employer we didn’t want their cti, the majority of the board decided they would settle for what was offered and damn the membership’s future.

This isn’t over. By the vote of the board, 5 national directors representing the majority of our membership voted no. this union and its membership is certainly worth fighting for. Say no to this offer and yes to respect from the corporation and the majority of our own neb.

In solidarity,
Jeff