祸民殃己。罢工何时休？ （邮务罢工 1）
加拿大的工会厉害是出了名的。工会合法当然罢工合法。至于罢工合不合理那是另一回事。
加拿大航空的3800名员工罢工，被1700名管理人员取代超常运行，我当时就想，要那么多的管理层何干？员工的法定退休保险没钱支付，何不各打五十板：解雇两个员工就要搭配解雇一个管理层；减少两个员工的一块钱就搭配减少一个管理层的一块钱；--- 真这样的话，每年可以省下三个亿，三年就是10个亿，劳保的缺口就可以补齐了。哈珀的多数政府下令他们强行复工，结果那症结又放在哪没人管，按现有的方式继续运行下去，那劳保的缺口只会继续加大下去，终有一天这“缺口”会引起大爆发，就像美国两房的次贷。当然，最坏的结果就是加航再宣布破产一次，反正破过一次，在破一次还那回事。破罐子破摔，谁怕谁。最后全让政府埋单 --- 当然就是纳税人埋单。
本来，邮局Canada Post与邮政工人工会的劳资合约就是寅吃卯粮，那退休的供款差额在过去15年累计达31亿，早该找个方式减少减少。双方对工资的合约达不成协议，当然对怎么减少CPP的供款差额更是南辕北辙。Canada Post作为独立核算的国营垄断公司，管理层倒挺硬，就是不愿意在这样的条件下让工会复工，因为越经营缺口越大，干脆关门停业得了。哈珀的联邦政府于6月20日向国会提交了一项强制邮局员工复工的特别法例，要求邮政总局颁发复工令。哈珀政府给出的条件比邮局管理层开出的还苛刻，这些邮差工会的头头当然没脸认账，工人从6月18日起在多伦多、温哥华等城市集会示威，反对政府的强制复工令。
加航罢工害的是旅客、旅游业和政府的营收。邮局的罢工害的是每个进出口公司的文件传递和支付、每个国内的小件服务及偏远地区的邮递。看来不大抵，其实影响面非常的大。让人每天抓头皮。
我说，这些工会的头头、管理层的主事者、哈珀政府的谈判代表，都他们的没诚意，非要把一方的怒气加大，让一方下不了台。为什么不各打五十板呢：员工12月冻结，管理层15月冻结；第二年员工涨1个点，管理层涨0.9个点；第三年员工涨1.2个点，管理层涨1个点，把与2个点的差额全部填进CPP供款差额，这样大约八年，CPP供款的缺口会从现在的30个亿降到10个亿。
------------
1。加拿大邮局从6月14日起关门歇业locked- out，但劳资双方有言在先：全国性的退休金（Canada Pension Plan）、老人年金（Old Age Security）、退伍军人年金 (Veterans Affairs Pension Plan) 、俗称牛奶金的加拿大儿童税务优惠 (Canada Child Tax Benefit) 、卑诗家庭津贴 ( British Columbia Family Bonus) 及保障收入津贴 (Guaranteed Income Supplement) 等支票派送服务仍于6月20日如期递送，邮政工会仍遵守承诺，派送200万张以上的支票。但是，对于各省的就业保险金（Employment Insurance）、统一销售税（HST）退款、以及个人或企业退税支票(Tax refund or rebates for individuals and business)则不在派送范围内。各省对以支票方式领取收入补助的民众，可亲赴省府驻各地办事处或服务处自取支票。
2。哈珀的联邦政府6月20日提出强制邮政工人复工的法案，法案中包含了薪资条款，建议在2011年加薪1.75%，2012年加1.5%，2013和2014年均加2%。邮政工人工会Canadian Union of Postal Workers对此表示不满：政府的加薪幅度比资方加拿大邮务公司Canada Post的还低，邮局的方案是在2011、2012和2013年分别加薪1.9%，2014年加薪2%。
联邦反对党NDP以及劳工关系专家都批评政府过早介入邮务公司的劳资纠纷，本身不中立。
3。美国宣布从上周六中部时间11时59分起，暂停接受寄往加拿大的邮件。美国邮政USPS继续接受全球特快速递服务向加国的投寄信件及包裹。
杨子 发表评论于
最新消息：罢工还有得等
OTTAWA — The federal NDP has said they are ready to use every trick in the book to delay passing back-to-work legislation, and help ensure locked-out Canada Post employees have as much time as possible to negotiate a settlement with their managers.
The Conservatives, who introduced the bill Monday, won't back down from a lengthy battle, but are working to have it passed as quickly as possible.
"We will continue sitting . . . until we finally dispose of the back-to-work legislation," Conservative House leader Peter Van Loan said Wednesday. "If everybody wants to co-operate, we could finish as early as Thursday or early into Friday. If the other parties are determined to prolong this matter, we could be sitting through the weekend."
Canada Post locked its employees out June 14, after 12 days of rotating strikes by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
Less than one week later, Labour Minister Lisa Raitt tabled Bill C-6, which would force the employees back to work at lower wages than a proposed settlement the Crown corporation had put on the table.
Opposition MPs have condemned the wage reductions specifically and the bill as a whole, saying it undermines the right to collective bargaining.
Before debate on the bill resumes in the House of Commons Thursday, there will be some procedural bits and pieces to get through.
For example, MPs will decide on the parameters determining how the bill will be passed — how many times it has to be read, whether it has to go to committee, and the intention to not stop debate until the bill is voted on.
But before that discussion even begins, Van Loan is expected to introduce a motion that will forcibly curtail debate on those parameters — an action known as known as closure.
Then once the debate moves on to the bill itself, there's no saying how long that will take, even though the House was scheduled to begin the summer break Thursday.
The longer the debate goes, the more time Canada Post employees and managers have reach a settlement on their own terms — a "fundamental right" the workers are being denied with this legislation, NDP members say.
"We intend to fight the legislation every step of the way, using all procedural manoeuvres that are possible in the House of Commons," said NDP leader Jack Layton.
Neither Layton nor the party whip, Chris Charlton, offered details on which manoeuvres the party plans to pull out in a potential filibuster.
"Well, as you can imagine, we're not going to disclose our parliamentary strategy before we're actually implementing it . . . At this point, I just don't feel comfortable disclosing where we're heading," Charlton said. "We're going to do everything we can to make sure that that legislation doesn't pass."
One tactic MPs have used in the past — a process that took more than 40 hours — was to introduce and vote on hundreds of amendments.
If the House passes the bill before Canada Post reaches an agreement with the union, the bill will be handed to the Senate, for further debate. If the Red Chamber also passes the legislation, the last step is for the Governor General to give his stamp of approval.
Conservative Senator Claude Carignan, deputy leader of the government in the Senate, said the Senate is prepared to sit "as long as it takes to pass the government's agenda."
OTTAWA — The federal NDP has said they are ready to use every trick in the book to delay passing back-to-work legislation, and help ensure locked-out Canada Post employees have as much time as possible to negotiate a settlement with their managers.
The Conservatives, who introduced the bill Monday, won't back down from a lengthy battle, but are working to have it passed as quickly as possible.
"We will continue sitting . . . until we finally dispose of the back-to-work legislation," Conservative House leader Peter Van Loan said Wednesday. "If everybody wants to co-operate, we could finish as early as Thursday or early into Friday. If the other parties are determined to prolong this matter, we could be sitting through the weekend."
Canada Post locked its employees out June 14, after 12 days of rotating strikes by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
Less than one week later, Labour Minister Lisa Raitt tabled Bill C-6, which would force the employees back to work at lower wages than a proposed settlement the Crown corporation had put on the table.
Opposition MPs have condemned the wage reductions specifically and the bill as a whole, saying it undermines the right to collective bargaining.
Before debate on the bill resumes in the House of Commons Thursday, there will be some procedural bits and pieces to get through.
For example, MPs will decide on the parameters determining how the bill will be passed — how many times it has to be read, whether it has to go to committee, and the intention to not stop debate until the bill is voted on.
But before that discussion even begins, Van Loan is expected to introduce a motion that will forcibly curtail debate on those parameters — an action known as known as closure.
Then once the debate moves on to the bill itself, there's no saying how long that will take, even though the House was scheduled to begin the summer break Thursday.
The longer the debate goes, the more time Canada Post employees and managers have reach a settlement on their own terms — a "fundamental right" the workers are being denied with this legislation, NDP members say.
"We intend to fight the legislation every step of the way, using all procedural manoeuvres that are possible in the House of Commons," said NDP leader Jack Layton.
Neither Layton nor the party whip, Chris Charlton, offered details on which manoeuvres the party plans to pull out in a potential filibuster.
"Well, as you can imagine, we're not going to disclose our parliamentary strategy before we're actually implementing it . . . At this point, I just don't feel comfortable disclosing where we're heading," Charlton said. "We're going to do everything we can to make sure that that legislation doesn't pass."
One tactic MPs have used in the past — a process that took more than 40 hours — was to introduce and vote on hundreds of amendments.
If the House passes the bill before Canada Post reaches an agreement with the union, the bill will be handed to the Senate, for further debate. If the Red Chamber also passes the legislation, the last step is for the Governor General to give his stamp of approval.
Conservative Senator Claude Carignan, deputy leader of the government in the Senate, said the Senate is prepared to sit "as long as it takes to pass the government's agenda."
杨子 发表评论于
邮局劳资双方主要争议为三部分：
1. 新来的员工是不是可用two tiers工资制度。工会说不行，这样使得新员工的收入比现有员工少22%。表面看来工会对资方给出的$24/hr满意，只是对入门起步就要达到这个数目不一致。
2. 假期问题。新来的是每年3周，工作25-28年后达到7周。原来工作7年后可休至4周，现在资方要求今后要工作10年才能年休至4周，工会不同意。
3。替工问题。员工病了自然减员了用临工补上。资方要求以后不能增加零工，由其他工人补上。工会认为加大了工人的强度，坚持没人替补就减少投递服务。资方的大意说有些没必要天天送递，隔天去一次就够了。
4。最重要的员工退休供款缺口，劳资双方谁也不提，就那样让它烂下去，唉谁谁。到时由政府一窝端.....
杨子 发表评论于
Walkom: Everyone wins with back-to-work bill, except Canada Post workers
By Thomas Walkom, National Affairs Columnist
The politics around the postal and Air Canada labour disputes are complicated. Yes, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has no love for unions. Yes, too, the government’s bill ordering locked-out postal employees back to work is biased — even insisting on a wage settlement lower than what Canada Post was prepared to offer.
But the Conservatives’ uncompromising stance is not unique. During their times in government, neither the Liberals nor the New Democrats have been loath to use the legislative hammer against striking or locked-out workers.
In 1997, the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien ended a two-week postal dispute by imposing a wage settlement that, like Harper’s today, was lower than the one Canada Post was prepared to offer.
Oddly enough, it was the Reform Party — precursor to Harper’s Conservatives — who complained that this was unfair.
And the New Democrats? This time, they are up in arms. Party leader Jack Layton has attacked the back-to-work legislation as a fundamental assault on the rights of workers.
Well, yes. But in the past, federal New Democrats have been willing to speed back-to-work legislation through the Commons, as they did in 1991, when a grain handlers’ strike threatened the interests of Western farmers.
In 1997, the NDP allowed back-to-work legislation ending that year’s postal strike, including the kind of imposed wage settlement it now calls unjust, to zip through Parliament in return for changes to other aspects of the bill.
Nor have provincial NDP governments been shy to impose back-to-work laws.
In the 1970s and early ’80s, Saskatchewan premier Allan Blakeney legislated an end to labour disputes involving power workers, dairy workers and non-medical hospital personnel.
In Ontario, Bob Rae’s NDP government of the early ’90s famously trampled over the union rights of about 1 million public sector workers through legislation that unilaterally altered their existing contracts.
Now federal Liberal leader, Rae has hinted his party might join the NDP in trying to delay the government’s back-to-work bill.
However, the most curious aspect of Harper’s approach is not his decision to legislate an end to the 18-day postal dispute. Consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have done that before, most recently in 1975, 1978, 1981, 1987 (twice) and 1997.
Nor is it the speed with which this legislation was introduced. Brian Mulroney’s Conservatives ended one 1987 postal strike after just nine days. In 1997, Chrétien’s Liberal government waited only two weeks before ordering postal employees back to work.
Rather it is Harper’s decision to intervene in the Air Canada strike just hours after it began. Air Canada is not an essential service. There are other airlines and other ways to get around.
More to the point, the strike called by the Canadian Auto Workers was shaping up to be a failure; the company kept flying with little or no service disruption.
Indeed, it’s arguable that by forcing a quick end to that strike, Labour Minister Lisa Raitt did the CAW a favour.
But that’s not how any of this will be played. Layton’s NDP has been accused of straying from its labour-friendly principles. It will find it useful to be seen acting firmly on the side of the unions — particularly in the context of a majority government where its opposition can make little practical difference.
The Liberals will be able to paint Harper’s actions as another example of his abuse of power — without having to dwell on their own view of postal workers.
And the Conservatives will be able to not only please their base but demonstrate to other public-sector employees that they can expect no mercy.
Everyone wins. Except, of course, the workers.
Thomas Walkom’s column appears Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday
By Thomas Walkom, National Affairs Columnist
The politics around the postal and Air Canada labour disputes are complicated. Yes, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has no love for unions. Yes, too, the government’s bill ordering locked-out postal employees back to work is biased — even insisting on a wage settlement lower than what Canada Post was prepared to offer.
But the Conservatives’ uncompromising stance is not unique. During their times in government, neither the Liberals nor the New Democrats have been loath to use the legislative hammer against striking or locked-out workers.
In 1997, the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien ended a two-week postal dispute by imposing a wage settlement that, like Harper’s today, was lower than the one Canada Post was prepared to offer.
Oddly enough, it was the Reform Party — precursor to Harper’s Conservatives — who complained that this was unfair.
And the New Democrats? This time, they are up in arms. Party leader Jack Layton has attacked the back-to-work legislation as a fundamental assault on the rights of workers.
Well, yes. But in the past, federal New Democrats have been willing to speed back-to-work legislation through the Commons, as they did in 1991, when a grain handlers’ strike threatened the interests of Western farmers.
In 1997, the NDP allowed back-to-work legislation ending that year’s postal strike, including the kind of imposed wage settlement it now calls unjust, to zip through Parliament in return for changes to other aspects of the bill.
Nor have provincial NDP governments been shy to impose back-to-work laws.
In the 1970s and early ’80s, Saskatchewan premier Allan Blakeney legislated an end to labour disputes involving power workers, dairy workers and non-medical hospital personnel.
In Ontario, Bob Rae’s NDP government of the early ’90s famously trampled over the union rights of about 1 million public sector workers through legislation that unilaterally altered their existing contracts.
Now federal Liberal leader, Rae has hinted his party might join the NDP in trying to delay the government’s back-to-work bill.
However, the most curious aspect of Harper’s approach is not his decision to legislate an end to the 18-day postal dispute. Consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have done that before, most recently in 1975, 1978, 1981, 1987 (twice) and 1997.
Nor is it the speed with which this legislation was introduced. Brian Mulroney’s Conservatives ended one 1987 postal strike after just nine days. In 1997, Chrétien’s Liberal government waited only two weeks before ordering postal employees back to work.
Rather it is Harper’s decision to intervene in the Air Canada strike just hours after it began. Air Canada is not an essential service. There are other airlines and other ways to get around.
More to the point, the strike called by the Canadian Auto Workers was shaping up to be a failure; the company kept flying with little or no service disruption.
Indeed, it’s arguable that by forcing a quick end to that strike, Labour Minister Lisa Raitt did the CAW a favour.
But that’s not how any of this will be played. Layton’s NDP has been accused of straying from its labour-friendly principles. It will find it useful to be seen acting firmly on the side of the unions — particularly in the context of a majority government where its opposition can make little practical difference.
The Liberals will be able to paint Harper’s actions as another example of his abuse of power — without having to dwell on their own view of postal workers.
And the Conservatives will be able to not only please their base but demonstrate to other public-sector employees that they can expect no mercy.
Everyone wins. Except, of course, the workers.
Thomas Walkom’s column appears Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday
登录后才可评论.
