From: amheater@BYE.SAILORcogeco.ca   
      
   "Mark Drummond"  wrote in message >>>   
   > I'm in now way an expert on this stuff. I can't say there is certainly   
   > *no* need for Unions, but in general I feel like they have become a   
   > problem. Unions solved horrible problems long ago. Those horrible problems   
   > no longer exist in Canada or the US (in general).   
   >   
   > There is an expectation these days that the Union will forever demand more   
   > from the employer, even when the employees already have it damn good. When   
   > you are already making great coin, with great benefits and insanely   
   > reduced working hours, what business do you have asking for more? It's an   
   > endless spiral ... we want more of the pie and we are willing to do less   
   > for it.   
   >   
   > I agree, the top-feeders are getting away with murder. The gap between the   
   > employee and the CXOs is way out of line. But the Unions don't solve that   
   > problem. Only governments and pissed off employees with bats solve that   
   > problem.   
      
   I agree with Mark. The original reasons for unions being formed has long   
   been forgotten.  As long as the current labour laws are up-held, and   
   continue to improve, there is little need for them.  Unions have become so   
   greedy it is shameful.  Closing the gap on CO of such places as banks should   
   be the target.  That and what's offered to refugees in comparison to our own   
   senior citizens .. some of whom fought to keep this country free and those   
   coming up who continue to serve the same purpose.   
      
   I lived in the UK during the latter 1960s when the unions brought her to her   
   knees.  The end result was a closure of so very many companies in the UK   
   (many went off-shore) .. and nearly all the coal mines ceased production,   
   throwing millions out of work.  Granted the need for coal was deminishing,   
   but it might not have ended so abruptly had there not been so many strikes.   
   Love her or hate her, it was under Margaret Thatcher's rule that prosperity   
   came to the common man, because she stood up to the unions and faced them   
   down.  I would hate to see that happen in this country.  It was a terrible   
   time for so many in the UK during that period.  My own uncle was very high   
   up in the Trade Union in Glasgow (in fact, he'll tell you straight up, he's   
   a Communist), leading many strikes and protests .. being arrested etc for   
   his activities.  Even he admits now, they went too far, demanded too much   
   and lost a great deal.   
      
   We are the opposite to my Uncle and are not in great favour of Unions at   
   all.  I work at Wal-mart .. no need to say more on how they feel about   
   unions.  The union has been trying to get a foot in with Wal-mart employees   
   for a very long time.  Most of us do not want them there, because we will   
   lose big time if they do .. just look at what happened in Quebec with those   
   4 stores which went with the union.  They were closed down, by Wal-mart, one   
   a brand new store, but a year or so old.  That is what will happen.  Should,   
   by some quirk of fate, all Wal-mart stores (say in Ontario) voted to join   
   the union at the same time, the employees will still lose big time.   
      
   One, they will have to pay union dues ... usually quite a chunk of your pay   
   cheque, especially for those who are on / just above minimum wage, many who   
   are just surviving as it is.  You'd be surprised how many are husband and   
   wife combos working in Wal-marts (no doubt other chains too).  We have at   
   least 7 pairs in our store alone, 5 with kids still going to school or not   
   yet in school.  Next we will lose our stakeholders share.  Each and every   
   Walmart employee shares in the profits of their own store, every year.  The   
   profits in my store aren't shared by those employees in Napanee or   
   Brockville or Belleville .. they have their own profits to share.  For folks   
   on min. wage, to be given a cheque of $1500 each April is pretty darn good.   
   Then we have our stockholders share .. our pension plan.  Walmart puts 4% of   
   our yearly earnings into an account for each of us.  When we leave   
   employment for any reason, after it is vested (2 years employment) we are   
   given that money.  Not in cash, but it is done (as far as I know!) so that   
   it can be re-invested with your own bank/financial institution into some   
   kind of retirement fund, for your future (this is what happened with us when   
   Wal-mart took over Woolco).  Next, those of us who buy stock, won't be   
   allowed to.  When we buy stock, Wal-mart buys 15% of the amount for us, to   
   add to what we buy.  In the first 4 years with the company, I made   
   $10,000.00 extra on what I had (me buying at $40.CDN per pay/bi-monthly,   
   plus their's added on) bought.  I retire next year, so will have a good   
   chunk of money coming to me from Wal-mart via my shareholders' and my   
   stockholders' accounts.  With a union .. I'd not have that - I'd lose it.   
      
   Next what will happen, will be a further reduction in the work force, plus   
   any new hirees will be part-time only.  So less people to do the work, in an   
   already over-worked group.  Many new stores (Napanee is one), hire fewer   
   full-time staff upon opening .. majority are all part time.  It will be more   
   so with a union.  Under the present scheme, part-timers share in all the   
   above current offerings.  Most also end up with full-time hours, even if   
   they aren't classed as full-time.  This will not be so, should we unionize.   
      
   A few years back, there was much 'secret' talk amidst my co-workers about   
   some union folk who wanted to meet and talk with us.  Our store manager got   
   wind of it, notifying head office.  They sent a memo out to us (openly read   
   at all our meetings / plus a copy attached to our pay stubs) to not be   
   afraid of speaking with the union, but to listen very carefully to what they   
   had to say  ...  but most of all  ... to what they were offering.  To   
   compare what they were offering, to what the Ontario Labour Laws guarenteed   
   us.   
      
   So I agreed to go to a meeting.  It was held at a back table in a resturant   
   in the mall.  I was not impressed.  Then, before anything else, I was asked   
   to fill out a card, with my name, address, employer, years of service, etc ~   
   I absolutely refused to give my SIN #  - which didn't go down very well with   
   the two men holding 'the meeting'.  I was not impressed.  There were about 5   
   Wal-mart employees there, two of us for the very first time.  We tried to   
   ask questions, when it became obvious they weren't forthcoming in anything   
   constructive about what they would (be) offering to us.  We were told they   
   weren't there to discuss that sort of thing just yet.  Actually .. neither   
   Elizabeth nor I could see just what this meeting was all about ... not at   
   that point, at any rate.   
      
   About 2-3 weeks later, one of the other employees who had been there,   
   stopped me outside the store, handing me a laminated wallet sized card.   
   When I looked at it, it said I was a member in good standing with this   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)