Home arrow Forums arrow Your Union arrow Save-on Members Reject Terms for Settlement

Save-on Members Reject Terms for Settlement

page: 1, 2, 3  next
Display posts from previous:
Author Message
Jeff-Hulk-Hemp
Post Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:24 pm

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 448
FINAL STRIKE NOTICE TO BE ISSUED

http://www.ufcw1518.com/view.php?id=2457
Well I am glad the membership stood up for themselfs !
Back to top profile :: pm :: www :: aim
SharynS
Post Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:55 am

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 2883
Location: the 'puter 		You bet they did! It's unclear which partner was more surprised by the ratification outcome, the employer or ufcw 1518.

Rumour had it there was some serious scrambling going on today in both corners, trying to figure out what the hell to do next. It really doesn't matter, what does matter, is that members will not go out on their knees as anticipated.

_________________
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
Jeff-Hulk-Hemp
Post Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 am

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 448
Siggy ,

Maybe its time uncarted takes over the contract talks lol.I sure they had the same look on their faces as Jim Ross did when he found out he was going to Smackdown !
Back to top profile :: pm :: www :: aim
SFway
Post Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:03 pm

Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 573
Have Bullhorn, Will Travel.

Great to see members standing up for themselves. Keep us posted, Siggy.
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail
Jeff-Hulk-Hemp
Post Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:57 pm

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 448
http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/21454789.html

Quote:
"The membership has spoken and have decided that the terms of settlement do not meet their needs and they are willing to fight for more," said union president Ivan Limpright.

Back to top profile :: pm :: www :: aim
Pearson
Post Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:34 pm

Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: Sun City AZ
Quote:
"The membership has spoken and have decided that the terms of settlement do not meet their needs and they are willing to fight for more,"

And therein lies the problem for virtually all workers these days. Limpright says they are willing to fight for it. There was a time and place when the leadership and the membership were one. Now it has become we and they.

Let workers/members stand on the line and starve, while the leadership doesn't miss a beat. I truly expect to see them make these radical misfits pay for not taking the leaderships recommendations and voting down the recommended offer.

Of course, there is one last hope; could the partners be working overtime and getting the mediator to call for a cooling off period? Could we see the Wilson Center take a break from talking to local 1036 members to see if 1518 members want a new vote?

_________________
If we don't do it, who will?
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail
Jeff-Hulk-Hemp
Post Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:32 pm

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 448
Well Bill this could be perview of what Chicago will be going thur .
Back to top profile :: pm :: www :: aim
SharynS
Post Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:20 pm

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 2883
Location: the 'puter
Quote:
Limpright says they are willing to fight for it.
The truth is about to unfold. Limpright will once again be sitting at the big boy table with the big boys. Here's hoping he's wearing his big boy pants this time around.

The employer (save-on-foods (and labour)) applied to the bclrb for (another) mediator. The bclrb has of course granted the employer it's applicaton. "The strike" scheduled for 6 pm saturday June 28th has been put on hold.

That a retail strike was averted going into the highly profitable canada day weekend - most likely just a wild fucking coincidence. Rolling Eyes

_________________
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
Post Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:26 pm

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 2883
Location: the 'puter 		Posted by Jeff-Hulk-Hemp

Save-On-Foods agreement reached

_________________
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
Post Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:30 pm

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 2883
Location: the 'puter 		Nothing like jumping the gun. That is is pure bullshit spin Jeff!

The Ready document - which gives vinny the mole, soul right and ownership and keeps him rolling in cash for five years - has NOT been ratified. There is no "agreement" to date.

_________________
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
SFway
Post Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:51 pm

Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 573
Precedent:
Typically, the UFCW will argue that unless members have voted by at least 66.% to reject a contract (indicative of widespread support for strike action), the union will go ahead and sign.
U.S. law, in fact, does not require member ratification; Canadian law may be different.
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail
SharynS
Post Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:59 pm

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 2883
Location: the 'puter 		Well if that's true SFway, then that's too bad because I just sent the bastard a nasty email for spinning it.

Jeff nage's garbage article does allude to the fact that it has not yet been ratified - but not before he pays homage and due lip service to his big business masters. The bugger is a paid spinner.

_________________
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
Jeff-Hulk-Hemp
Post Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:36 pm

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 448
http://www.ufcw1518.com/view.php?id=2483

Well here is more .
Back to top profile :: pm :: www :: aim
ross53
Post Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:12 pm

Joined: 24 May 2006
Posts: 1434
Location: california
SFway wrote:

U.S. law, in fact, does not require member ratification;


Yes it is true!!!

However, the UFCW is always in compliance with the Law.

As a matter of fact it was reported by UFCW insiders that on the last Southern California Negotiations two of the seven unions did not reach the 66% approval of the current contract, yet the UFCW brass combined all of the votes together arriving at the magic number of 66% approval. UFCW Local 135 under the dictatorship of Mickey Kasparian, reported a 90% approval, furthermore to add insults to injury, Kasparian publicly stated that the new contract is such a major victory for the union that working at a grocery store is not a job it is a career.

I have yet to see any of his family members quitting their current jobs and start a career with the grocers in Southern California.

_________________
" I always wondered why somebody doesn't do something about that. Then I realized I was somebody" Lilly Tomlin.
Back to top profile :: pm :: www
SharynS
Post Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:50 pm

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 2883
Location: the 'puter 		Correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that the ufcw's "66%" constitutional requirement is only valid in cases involving rejection. No such standard is applicable to member ratifications. Thereby making it possible (and quite alright by ufcw standards) for a slim majority to condemn everyone else to live with a shitty ufcw deal but not possible (nor alright) for that same slim majority to select the battle terms.

Two new buzz words have surfaced: "switch" and "decertification". All I can say is thank gawd for google and open source. And thank gawd for the will of the people.

Stand back troughers - she's gonna' blow!

_________________
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
Home arrow Forums arrow Your Union arrow Save-on Members Reject Terms for Settlement
Page 1 of 3
page: 1, 2, 3  next
Display posts from previous:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group