Home
Forums
Your Union
State of the Union
Forums
Your Union
State of the Union
State of the Union
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
| OCCUPY LRB |
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 6:57 am
|
|
Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 36 Location: 1066 W. Hastings St. |
Quote: State of the Union -
Have the BC Liberals ushered in a new era of peace in the labour patch, or do recent concessions just mark one last hurrah in unions' long slow march to irrelevance? The foregoing is from an article in the current issue of BC Business magazine and provides interesting reading for anyone concerned with the labour movement. In the article, a number of BC business and labour leaders opine on the state of labour relations in the province but one quote in particular by BC Federation of Labour president Jim Sinclair caught my eye. Quote: "I'd say it's alive, well and kicking," [Jim Sinclair] says of the province's union movement. "It's had its challenges, but no one can say we're not out there defending folks and fighting for people's rights." -(emphasis added) Well that's just bullshit, and Jim Sinclair knows it's bullshit. Did Jim say "no one..." ?!? Surely, that's a statement that flies in the many faces of the scores of DFR complainants that apply annually to the BC Labour Relations Board. "...no one can say we're not out there defending folks and fighting for people's rights." In reality, there's a great deal of people saying exactly that -hell, I've said it right to Jim Sinclair's face. Flashback to last year's provincial election - It was April 14, 2005 when I attended a "Meet the Candidate Social" in New Westminster -the NDP's coming out party for candidate Chuck Puchmayr which featured a special appearance by Jim Sinclair. As a senior member of the Brewery Workers' Union Local 300, I was already well acquainted with Chuck Puchmayr, the union's former business agent. I did, however wish to meet Jim Sinclair and to apprise him of what I considered to be, in Chuck Puchmayr, a most deplorable choice of candidate for the NDP. It should be said at the very outset that I base my opinion of Chuck on my personally having known him for some 25 years and more recently in having been kneecapped by Puchmayr in his woeful 2003 settlement with Labatt of my grievances for wrongful dismissal (while disabled) and Labatt's failure to pay me disability benefits owed. Puchmayr's settlement with Labatt (after more than 7 years of litigation) had provided no relief for me, whatsoever and whatsmore, held serious ramifications for other Local 300 members in numerous bargaining units including Molson's Vancouver plant. Puchmayr's backroom deal with Labatt served to undermine the interests of senior members of Local 300 and at great cost to those unwitting members I was accompanied to Mr. Puchmayr's soiree by two other senior members of Local 300, including my friend and union brother Dick Findlay. Mr. Findlay had his own issues with Chuck Puchmayr and the Brewery Workers' Union that he wished to bring to Jim Sinclair's attention. Unfortunately, our little contingent was barred from entering the gathering by Puchmayr's handlers. Instead, they brought Jim Sinclair out to the lobby of the building where the event was held (CAW's New Westminster headquarters). Mr. Sinclair then led us out of the building where we were allowed five minutes or so of his time. I can tell you this with respect to Jim Sinclair: he appeared to have a great deal of difficulty in even looking me in the eye. I only spoke to him for a minute or two before he was whisked away inside, but as we spoke I watched with incredulity as his gaze shifted lower and lower under my visage, resting finally at my feet. This was truly disconcerting as the only other times I had seen Jim Sinclair was on televised news reports in which his steely blue eyes looked either directly into the camera or the eyes of a reporter with unflinching assertiveness. Not so with me. Dick Findlay was equally unsuccessful in impressing Mr. Sinclair with what essentially amounts to rampant abuse of the rights of a disabled worker in the brewing industry, in which Chuck Puchmayr and the Brewery Workers' Union have played a leading role. Sinclair listened to Findlay -or appeared to listen - then quietly retreated to the inner sanctum of the CAW union hall, far from our dissenting voices left out there on the sidewalk. "...but no one can say we're not out there defending folks and fighting for people's rights." - Yeah right, Jim. No one. Yep, everything remains sunny and upbeat for Mr. Sinclair and for his ilk -here I include my backstabbing 'friend' Chuck Puchmayr who has since gone on to become the Labour Critic for the NDP opposition. Meanwhile, the ever growing chorus of dissatisfaction from the hundreds (thousands?) of disenfranchised union members in BC continues to be so casually ignored by big labour's fatcat elite. Shame on these hypocrites. Shame on Jim Sinclair. _________________ "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke If ya wanna make an omelette, ya gotta break some eggs Last edited by OCCUPY LRB on Mon May 29, 2006 2:59 am; edited 4 times in total |
| Back to top | profile :: pm |
| wm pasz |
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 6:45 pm
|
|
Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Posts: 1219 Location: Toronto |
It seems that Sinclair has managed to convince at least one person - himself - through repeating the "we're alive, well and kicking" mantra, that this really is so.
What's so pathetic about this is that not only has his BC F of L failed miserably to make a dent in the neo-con agenda of the BC Liberals, it's actually worked actively behind the scenes to put down rebellions that had thousands of workers poised to make a stand, legally or illegally, against the government's agenda. In the high profile BC Ferries, HEU and BC Teachers' disputes, Sinclair's emissaries worked feverishly behind the scenes to skuttle these uprisings by forcing these unions into binding arbitration which led to the gutting of collective agreements as per the demands of the employers involved. Sinclair's and other delusional BC union leaders are alive, well and kicking on golf courses, in bars and restaurants and at lavish self-congratulatory conventions but that's about it. _________________ Time is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. Truth is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. You don't need anything else. - Malcolm X |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: www |
| SharynS |
Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 3:16 am
|
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 2939 Location: the 'puter |
If there's been any kind of destructive force assisting the liberal regime in the province of B.C. then it would have to be big labour. It has all but lost every shred of credibility under Sinclair's lead. I'm sorry you had to hear that Jim, but I'm sure it's not the first time. Let me just add that you do have the ability to turn it around if you chose to. You are, after all, the great labour leader.
I can't help but think if the BC F of L and it's occupiers had one ounce of compassion they would close up shop and let bc employers finish the hatchet job. I'd much rather have my tombstone read "ambushed by the enemy" than "shot down by freindly fire". It just sounds somehow less degrading overall. _________________ Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| SharynS |
Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 12:51 am
|
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 2939 Location: the 'puter |
3 for me and 3 for you, 2 for me and 2 for you - that was sOoo yesterday at the bclrb. 
It looks like Jim (in the air) Sinclair (bc fed) and his buddy Chuck (pants on fire) Puchmayr (ndp'r) may be getting the shitty end of the labour peace stick. Who knew eh? Critics slam changes at Labour Relations Board. Quote: The NDP and the B.C. Federation of Labour are criticizing the provincial government for making changes to the makeup of the Labour Relations Board without consultation.
They say the decision not to reappoint three of the LRB's nine vice-chairs – officials who mediate disputes between employers and unions – was made against the wishes of board chairman Brent Mullin, who had recommended that cabinet give all nine another term. "Obviously, if these three have been there before ... their merits would reflect them having reappointments, and the chair recommended re-appointments, and the cabinet is deciding not to, without any consultation whatsoever," NDP labour critic Chuck Puchmayr said. B.C. Federation of Labour president Jim Sinclair said it's crucial that appointees have the backing of both business and labour. _________________ Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| OCCUPY LRB |
Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 11:01 pm
|
|
Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 36 Location: 1066 W. Hastings St. |
Quote: "Obviously, if these three have been there before ... their merits would reflect them having reappointments, and the chair recommended re-appointments, and the cabinet is deciding not to, without any consultation whatsoever," NDP labour critic Chuck Puchmayr said. To what "merits" is Puchmayr referring -and what makes them so "obvious"??? One of the vice-chairs in question referred to above is Nabjeed J. Hassan, a 'business-side' adjudicator at the Board. Is it any coincidence that Hassan recently sat in adjudication of my DFR complaint that implicated Puchmayr directly, with respect to Puchmayr's role as business agent for the Brewery Workers' Union? Is Puchmayr -"obviously" -sending Hassan a little message of thanks for having saved Puchmayr's bacon by dismissing my complaint the way he did? Why else would the labour-driven Puchmayr advocate so strongly for re-appointment in support of an adjudicator who is widely considered to be employer-friendly? Perhaps I'll yet be proven right in my earlier assessment of Chuck Puchmayr. In my submission to the BC Labour Relations Board concerning Chuck Puchmayr, I wrote: "I consider Mr. Puchmayr to be a two-faced, duplicitous backstabber". I continue to stand by that assessment. So choke on it Chucky. 
_________________ "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke If ya wanna make an omelette, ya gotta break some eggs Last edited by OCCUPY LRB on Mon May 29, 2006 10:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
| Back to top | profile :: pm |
| OCCUPY LRB |
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 9:36 am
|
|
Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 36 Location: 1066 W. Hastings St. |
Quote: They say the decision not to reappoint three of the LRB's nine vice-chairs – officials who mediate disputes between employers and unions – was made against the wishes of board chairman Brent Mullin, who had recommended that cabinet give all nine another term. I wonder, did anyone else catch that bit of misinformation? Both the employers and the unions are referred to -but no mention, whatsoever, of the one other significant and (dis)affected party in a labour relations dispute: i.e. the employees. That's you and me, brothers and sisters. Is the CBC's exclusion of employees as a group done deliberately? Or does it more likely reveal a simple but genuine naivete on the part of the media to even make such an omission -to assume (albeit erroneously) that labour's interests equates naturally to the employees' interests? (Hint: they don't) I'm not sure which is true. But it seems a great deal more has to be done to bring about an awareness and a differentiation of the distinct, disparate interests of employees and of unions. They are NOT one and the same no matter how much the Sinclairs and the Puchmayrs may try to convince otherwise.
Elephant DOOs and DON'TS.... Now if only the media could get their heads-in-the-sand around that basic fact of life -because then and only then can we move the discussion along to the important matter of whether individual employee rights are actually being maintained in this province at all. Or are people being victimized by their employers, and by their unions even, on a routine basis? The elephant in the room that NO ONE -not the lawyers, not the unions, not the employers nor the adjudicators or even the media - ever wishes to acknowledge, at last has a name: it's Individual Employee Rights, folks. And it's a smelly elephant, indeed. And if that lot were ever to actually concede the elephant's existence, then they might have to also acknowledge the huge heaps of steaming elephant dung they've all been ignoring for so long. So that's what that smell is. 
_________________ "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke If ya wanna make an omelette, ya gotta break some eggs |
| Back to top | profile :: pm |
| BZelley |
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:51 pm
|
|
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 Posts: 26 Location: Canada |
Interesting reading the article "The Dick Findlay Story"
During his days as an amateur boxer, Dick represented Canada in numerous Inernational competitions. It's a shame, that it doesn't appear that he is getting a good decision in this battle 
|
| Back to top | profile :: pm |
Home
Forums
Your Union
State of the Union
Forums
Your Union
State of the Union
|
Page 1 of 1
|
||