uncharted.ca :: View topic

Home

UFCW Local 648

page: prev 1, 2, 3	Display posts from previous:

Author	Message

SFway	Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:11 am
Joined: 26 May 2006 Posts: 573	DT and all, I apologize for the delay in response to the query. Check out www.beyondchron.org for 7/27/06. There is an article on the hearing before the Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee. From what I have heard, it seems that the hearing was well attended by working people from a variety of industries, including a number of UFCW members. The workers gave direct and stark testimony about paid sick leave and what the absence of paid sick leave means for low/lower-wage working people. The aim of the hearing was to win approval from the Committee for the full Board of Supervisors to place on the November 2006 ballot an initiative to require all employers in San Francisco to provide paid sick leave days for their employees. If the voters then approve the initiative, every worker/employee in San Francisco will receive paid sick leave days. The hearing was initiated by a coalition of community-and workforce-based groups: Young Workers United, the Chinese Progressive Assocation, the Center for Young Women's Development. The SF Public Health Department testified on behalf of the initiative as did several national organizations, the Institute for Women's Policy Research among others. Several UFCW members attended to give testimony. One thing that apparently came out at the hearing was as follows: under the current UFCW Grocery Contract, employees hired after ratification do not, repeat not, receive the benefit of paid sick leave days - new hires accrue the hours at the Trust but thay are not allowed to use them for more than three years. If you are a UFCW Grocery member hired after March 2005, you can (and will) be sick, you may call in sick, but you will not receive sick leave benefits from the Trust. What makes this interesting is that this is precisely opposite to what UFCW Members were told preceding ratification. The materials from the Locals to the Members informing them of the conditions of the new Contract, recommending it, and accompanying the ballot to approve or diapprove, specifically stated that there would be no changes to the sick leave benefit across the board. absolutely no mention was made of denying paid sick leave to new hires. So, to the lawyers: is a contract legally valid when all the conditions preceding agreement have not been disclosed or have been disguised? Are UFCW Grocery members, in the Bay Area and NorCal, working under a valid contract?
Back to top	profile :: pm :: e-mail







deep throat	Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:37 pm
Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 13	Sfway Don't kow the answer to your question but I would call the union to see if they have any knowledge of what is going on. I'm getting my team in place and may announce my group to run against them within the next mointh or so. Wish us luck.
Back to top	profile :: pm



taffy	Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:43 pm
Joined: 12 Jul 2006 Posts: 104	What is legal, again I am amazed at the same problems for Canada and the US, the last ratification meeting of the ufcw I was at. I recieved a telephone call minutes before the ratification meeting, from a source that if we ratified, all the full time cashiers and meat wrappers would be part time, I asked John Fuller ufcw rep taking the meeting. Twice at this meeting if my information was correct,quote# if this contract is ratified will it result in full time job losses# His answer was no, my information was not correct. This after a strike, on return to work 95% of the cashiers and meat wrappers were schuduled part time. Is the contract binding< In Canada yes, the ufcw represent you, and have the legal right to accept a contract without a vote. But on questioning the rep. with a charge being considered, his response was he did not remember being asked the question, and he was supported by the president, to the extent that Wayne made him his personel assistant, which should be the ufcw,s motto, the biggar the fuck up the biggar the promotion, welcome to the trough////////
Back to top	profile :: pm



SFway	Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:13 am
Joined: 26 May 2006 Posts: 573	DT, There are some interesting possibilities here. So, without any compromise of your security/anonymity, consider shooting me an e-mail at: retailworkers@earthlink.net. We may have some common ground.
Back to top	profile :: pm :: e-mail



Pearson	Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:48 pm
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 1417 Location: Sun City AZ	Quote: So, to the lawyers: is a contract legally valid when all the conditions preceding agreement have not been disclosed or have been disguised? Are UFCW Grocery members, in the Bay Area and NorCal, working under a valid contract? Thank God i'm not an attorney but this one has been asked a million times. The contract is legal and binding. Unfortunately this kind of mistake has been repeared any number of times and Taffy is right; once the employers offer is made, the union has an obligation to present it and if there are oversights, too bad. One of the reasons we have been demanding total transparency and plenty of pre-voting communication is so these kinds of problems don't occur. Of course if their goal is to hide it so the contract passes, then crap like this will still go down. _________________ If we don't do it, who will?
Back to top	profile :: pm :: e-mail



SFway	Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:30 pm
Joined: 26 May 2006 Posts: 573	BP...many thanks for the feedback; that was my thought as well. DT...apart from what I hear was a very late night of counting ballots, the question is: was the election run accurately, honestly, openly, with integrity? did all eligible members receive ballots? were those ballot kept secure from meddling? Were the ballots counted accurately? Again, my understanding is that the entire election was run by working Members, not by officers or by the IU. One long, late night is a small price to pay, in my opinion, for such a thing. Contrast this with the 588 merger ballot count - which is preferable.
Back to top	profile :: pm :: e-mail



deep throat	Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:58 pm
Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 13	Sfway The election from my understanding went to the wee hours. The people that were counting the ballots were not someone that I wanted to have. I think fatigue kicked in in the end and it was sloppy. It should have been stopped and continued in the morning with the chair person setting the rules. That is why I prefer havng DOL oversee the process where there will be no second-guessing. Let them set the rules and everyone follow. I am not cticizing the process but there was alot of grumbling among my store about the counters, about the security of the process. It should have been counted in a neutral facility. I'm going to ask the DOL to come in to run the election and see if any one opposes it. I would hire all counters from an outside agency with no ties to 648, the IU or CTW. I'm also looking into the possibility and the possibility of some sort of a scanner to speed up the process. I think our members deserve better than this administration. Also, I saw Mike sharpe shopping in my store today with his kids. Everyone started heckling him about the contract and teased him about the election since we see him at election time only. He turned red and left and said you should contact your rep if you have any questions or conerns. What a asshole. BTW, I enjoy your line in the "Neoptism" thread
Back to top	profile :: pm



unionnow	Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 1:34 am
Joined: 05 Feb 2006 Posts: 695 Location: Gettin the Hell out of retail	bump _________________ “The burden against Damascus. ‘Behold, Damascus will cease from being a city, and it will be a ruinous heap. (Isaiah 17:1-2)
Back to top	profile :: pm :: e-mail



SFway	Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:13 pm
Joined: 26 May 2006 Posts: 573	Hello to all I'm not sure where we e-went but we seem to be back. Excellent! A number of things have occured since my last post. 1. There will be an initiative on the November ballot in San Francisco which, if passed, mandates that every employer who does business in the city must provide paid sick leave days for every employee. The Coalition for Paid Sick Days, which includes Young Workers United, The Chinese Progressive Association, SEIU Local 790 and a number of other community organizations, persuaded a sufficient number of SF Supervisors to get this measure on the ballot for voters to approve. Members of UFCW Local 648 will be integrally involved in the campaign to win voter approval. 2. Bristol Farms, the non-union Albertsons grocery operation, is atempting to enter the San Francisco market at a location at Market St. and 5th. At the SF Board of Supervisors on 15 August, representatives from Bristol Farms were publically told by Supervisor Chris Daly: This is a Union city. Play by our rules or I will cut your cojones off and hand them to you. The remark gave rise to public applause from the other Members of the Board. This is the kind of support from public officials that a Union with active Members receives.
Back to top	profile :: pm :: e-mail

Home

Forums

Your Union

UFCW Local 648


Page 3 of 3 page: prev 1, 2, 3	Display posts from previous:
	Jump to: