 |
EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:47 pm Post subject: Union Members Are Second Class Citizens |
 |
|
The Challenge -
A number of recent challenges by EnMasse member, munroe, to "organize"/"don't bitch" left me thinking this past Labour Day, with respect to a serious problem faced by many unionized workers whose rights and interests have been disregarded by their employers and unions alike; and with no relief.
As many of you know (from reading my earlier posts detailing my personal account), I am one of those disaffected unionized workers; in many respects, a casualty of the labour relations system as we know it.
In a country that purports to virtually hold sacred the rights of the individual, I am left to ponder how such injustice can go largely unchallenged by those Canadians that might otherwise be, rightly, offended by the type of injustice to which I've fallen victim; and how best to respond?
How is such systematic injustice allowed to promulgate, and to whom should we look to blame for this sorry state of affairs? And moreover, what's required to put an end to such injustice?
The Problem -
A good place to start is with the agency that is ostensibly in place to make 'lawful' determinations with respect to the rights of unionized workers: The Labour Relations Board.
In my very first post on this forum I opined:
| Quote: | (Our) "labour laws, with respect to the protection of the rights (and more importantly, the interests) of unionized workers are woefully inadequate.
One likes to assume one has rights -including the right to protection under a collective agreement from unfair treatment by an employer. But this is merely an illusion.
The sad reality is that it is the employer that has rights and the union has rights. Unfortunately, one of the rights conferred upon them both is the right to determine what the employee's rights are.
And basically, the Labour Relations Board is essentially in place to uphold and protect the employer's/union's rights -invariably at the expense of the employee's perceived rights. In fact, any labour lawyer with an ounce of integrity (if that is even a possibility) will tell you the same.
This reveals, in my view, a fundamental flaw in the labour relations system as we know it: i.e. the system is so skewed to unduly benefit the employer and the union and as such is wide open to potential abuse.
Thus, the unionized worker in Canada is really relegated to a second-class-citizen status -only he just doesn't really know it. But in the event the employee finds his own interests come into direct conflict with those of his employer and his union, he's invariably left without a pot to piss in." |
In fact, the unionized worker's only recourse is to file a complaint against his union, notwithstanding that in the majority of cases the worker's real complaint lies with the conduct of the employer. That complaint process (in BC) falls under Section 12 of the Labour Code, which is referenced as the Duty of Fair Representation (DFR for short) and is designed to protect and insulate the employer as much as (if not more than) the union itself.
To begin with, the Duty of Fair Representation is not really a 'duty' at all. In countless LRB decisions (sometimes hundreds annually) the word "duty" has been 'legalized' and/or mitigated to render it completely meaningless. I think most people would agree that a "duty" implies something absolute or concrete; something beyond rationalization. A duty is either a duty or it's not. But not so in the murky, legal waters of labour relations: "duty" means whatever the LRB deems it to mean.
The Injustice -
The number of dismissed DFR complaints of unionized workers by the LRB is legion and speaks for itself. The number of 'winning' cases is appallingly low; I say appalling because there really aren't any to speak of.
Oh, the Board sometimes lets one 'squeak by the goalposts' -however, the 'win' is usually nominal and can usually be counted on to go down to defeat on appeal.
The dearth of 'winning' DFR complaints, when expressed as a percentage/ratio of the number of complaints filed, is reason enough for concern; and rightful suspicion of the LRB (if we were referring to a provincially funded lottery you could be sure that agency's CEO would have long ago been fired for running a crooked game).
And of course, unknown in all of this is the number of valid complaints that don't ever get filed by workers; either because the 'process' proves to be too daunting (more on that later) or they don't have the $100 bucks they first need to pony up in order to even file their complaint.
In short, the LRB, IMO, is little more than a taxpayer-funded 'dog and pony show' designed to enrich labour lawyers while enabling unscrupulous employers to disenfranchise working people -all under the guise of serving a 'quasi judicious' purpose. As I've stated before, the LRB appears to be far more "quasi" than "judicious" -i.e. more seemingly so than just.
I believe it's high time the taxpaying public became cognizant of the brutal disservice being paid to unionized workers by this disfunctional arm of government. That same notion was recently summed up beautifully in a recent post by EnMasse member, gbuddy .
gbuddy wrote: | Quote: | | The story of what has been going on in that agency, from at least the time it was reconstituted by the NDP in 1992 is one that the public would benefit from hearing. It would then be apparent to everyone that this is not an agency capable of competent or impartial adjudication, but the nominal capstone of a regime that serves the interests of a few, causes unnecessary injury to many, and delivers no real benefits to society. |
I heartily concur with gbuddy but I believe, for the sake of those unionized workers left with unresolved issues of workplace injustice, that government must provide a suitable remedy.
The Solution -
To that end I suggest what's needed immediately is the institution and appointment, by the (Liberal) government of the day, of a Labour Ombudsman to review and act as oversight (in particular of) Sections 12 and 13 DFR decisions by the Labour Relations Board of BC.
Currently, such matters are the sole purview of the Court; and that is only after the complainant has shelled out to the LRB a further $200 dollars filing fee to appeal his dismissed complaint before being once again dismissed by the same LRB.
A worker shouldn't be required to jump through so many 'legal hoops' to achieve a just resolution in matters that essentially stem from his relationship with his employer. I believe those obstacles are purposely there to impede and dissuade the worker from attaining justice, plain and simple.
I believe this situation must be changed and the time for change is now!!
The Poll -
How about you? Do you know of a worker that's been screwed over by his/her employer and with apparent impunity? If so, I'd like to hear about it.
And should you happen to agree with my position I'd like you to let me know by taking the accompanying poll. And conversely, should you happen to disagree, please let me know why.
Together, let's put things right for our unionized brothers and sisters. Let's begin the process. Now, the challenge is yours.
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For some reason the polling function failed to work for me. So, I'll post the question here for response by En Masse members:
Do you support the institution and appointment of a Labour Ombudsman to review and act as oversight of Sections 12 and 13 DFR decisions by the Labour Relations Board of BC?
Yes?
No?
Other?
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unionist
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 2378
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lucky Bastard wrote: | Do you support the institution and appointment of a Labour Ombudsman to review and act as oversight of Sections 12 and 13 DFR decisions by the Labour Relations Board of BC?
Yes?
No?
Other? |
Gordon Campbell appointing an "Ombudsman" to allow individuals to complain that the Labour Relations Board has sided with the trade union?
Great idea! Why didn't I think of that! Mark me down for a couple of Yes votes.*
*NOTE: Sorry, that's how we conduct votes in the union movement. One leader, many votes. One member, who cares.
Go, Gordon, go! Whip them union bosses into shape!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
As expected, a simple answer from an even simpler man, unionist.
unionist wrote: | Quote: | Gordon Campbell appointing an "Ombudsman" to allow individuals to complain that the Labour Relations Board has sided with the trade union?
Great idea! Why didn't I think of that! Mark me down for a couple of Yes votes.*
*NOTE: Sorry, that's how we conduct votes in the union movement. One leader, many votes. One member, who cares.
Go, Gordon, go! Whip them union bosses into shape!! |
The proposal supports the institution of "a Labour Ombudsman to review and act as oversight of Sections 12 and 13 DFR decisions by the Labour Relations Board of BC." And it says nothing about "complain(ing) that the Labour Relations Board has sided with the trade union".
You've only assumed that such a review would necessarily be a "complaint" aimed at a "trade union". Again, the mandate of the Labour Ombudsman would be to "review" and provide "oversight" of "decisions" made by "the LRB".
Contrary to the picture you paint, the purpose of an office of Labour Ombudsman would be, in fact, to ensure that an individual's rights are protected from abuse by an employer, from which the vast majority of Section 12 complaints arise.
Surely you'd have no objections to that? Is not the protection of the rights of the worker paramount to this discussion and proposal?
You've completely misstated the proposition to suit your own agenda. And by invoking the nasty spectre of "Gordon Campbell" -playing the 'Campbell Card' -you've attempted to distract from the basic premise.
Well, I've got news for you: Gordo's not always gonna be available as your convenient bogey man; one day he'll be gone; one day the NDP will resume a position of power.
But whomever assumes power won't mean a hill of beans to the downtrodden worker -not as long as the LRB remains unfettered in its blatant denial of justice to those same workers.
How about if it was Carole James appointing an "Ombudsman" to allow individuals to complain that the Labour Relations Board has sided with an unscrupulous employer? Would that make you any happier? Wouldn't that be a huge improvement over the way labour relations is conducted currently, which serves to only protect and insulate the employer.
Because that's what's actually's happening. That's what happened to me, personally.
That the office of the Labour Ombudsman would require it to be truly independent of employer interests and union interests is a given; it's mandate would obviously be to serve the interests of the worker and he/she alone.
Is that what's really sticking in yer craw, unionist; that the interests of the lowly worker might be better served than is presently the case?
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unionist
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 2378
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lucky Bastard wrote: | | As expected, a simple answer from an even simpler man, unionist. |
If you insult me one more time, I'll lose my temper and start hurling curses at lowly union members while smoking my $300 cigar and sipping Veuve Cliquot. C'mon, LB, just one more crack and you'll have me on the run.
| Quote: | | Is not the protection of the rights of the worker paramount to this discussion and proposal? |
No, my prime concern is the protection of union dues and a steady stream of income to parasitical union bosses who take pleasure in the misery of the ordinary workers.
| Quote: | | You've completely misstated the proposition to suit your own agenda. And by invoking the nasty spectre of "Gordon Campbell" -playing the 'Campbell Card' -you've attempted to distract from the basic premise. |
No, you're proposing government oversight of how unions deal with their members. That puts you on one side of the trench and me on the other - and I don't really give a damn which government it is. I trust workers to make decisions for workers and no one else. That means majority rules, and it also means the rights of the individual to fair representation are sacrosanct. But to think that government will enshrine those rights is a feverish delusion. I will never agree with that.
| Quote: | | Well, I've got news for you: Gordo's not always gonna be available as your convenient bogey man; one day he'll be gone; one day the NDP will resume a position of power. |
Whoop de doo, it'll be heaven on earth, we can wind up our unions and trust to Ujjal Dosanjh - er, no, he left, didn't he - Glen Clark - ummm wait a sec - all right, maybe we'll hang on to our unions after all. Now that you mention it, I can't recall any NDP government that hasn't legislated striking workers back to work...
Ok, will you accept a compromise? A Labour Ombudsman, appointed by vote of all individual workers in the province, whose sole mandate is to defend workers and unions against injustices practised by governments?
| Quote: | | How about if it was Carole James appointing an "Ombudsman" to allow individuals to complain that the Labour Relations Board has sided with an unscrupulous employer? Would that make you any happier? Wouldn't that be a huge improvement over the way labour relations is conducted currently, which serves to only protect and insulate the employer. |
No, no, and no. Er, and no.
| Quote: | | That the office of the Labour Ombudsman would require it to be truly independent of employer interests and union interests is a given; it's mandate would obviously be to serve the interests of the worker and he/she alone. |
Yeah, the government will make sure of that, won't they.
| Quote: | | Is that what's really sticking in yer craw, unionist; that the interests of the lowly worker might be better served than is presently the case? |
Yes, that's it, listen up man, I already told you: I revel in the workers' distress. I chuckle at their failures. It's what wakes me up in the morning.
I hope the above has given you some comfort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cartman
Beyond cuddly
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8284
Location: Conservative Reform Alliance Party = CRAP
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | As expected, a simple answer from an even simpler man, unionist.
|
Enough of that LB. Consider that an official warning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Lucky Bastard wrote:
As expected, a simple answer from an even simpler man, unionist. |
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | If you insult me one more time, I'll lose my temper and start hurling curses at lowly union members while smoking my $300 cigar and sipping Veuve Cliquot. C'mon, LB, just one more crack and you'll have me on the run. |
I think you (and perhaps Cartman, too) may have mistaken a sarcastic remark for an "insult". My apologies, unionist and to all those I may have inadvertently offended. How about we both agree to dispense with the 'heavy sarcasm' altogether and stick to the original premise?
| Quote: | Lucky Bastard wrote:
Is not the protection of the rights of the worker paramount to this discussion and proposal? |
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | No, my prime concern is the protection of union dues and a steady stream of income to parasitical union bosses who take pleasure in the misery of the ordinary workers. |
Now you see, that's that sarcastic stuff I was talking about.
| Quote: | Lucky Bastard wrote:
You've completely misstated the proposition to suit your own agenda. And by invoking the nasty spectre of "Gordon Campbell" -playing the 'Campbell Card' -you've attempted to distract from the basic premise. |
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | No, you're proposing government oversight of how unions deal with their members...-and I don't really give a damn which government it is. |
But is that not, in fact, what the LRB does on a daily basis? And is not the LRB, by proxy, an arm of "the government"? Are you not, in fact, describing precisely the system that's in place now? Well, of course you are; that much is obvious.
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | I trust workers to make decisions for workers and no one else. |
I am to take it, then, that you don't "trust" the LRB "to make decisions for workers"? It seems to me that you and I might be on the same side of "the trench"(?) after all. But that still does not negate the fact that that is, in fact, the very task (i.e. to issue decisions) assigned and mandated to the LRB; by the government, of course.
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | That means...the rights of the individual to fair representation are sacrosanct. |
My dictionary defines "sacrosanct" as sacred; inviolable, that which cannot be violated or injured.
I've got some bad news for you: those rights are being violated on a sometimes daily basis by the LRB -apparently, you just refuse to accept that fact. My own rights were so violated but somehow I don't hear you speaking out on my behalf.
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | But to think that government will enshrine those rights is a feverish delusion. I will never agree with that. |
I've got some more bad news for you, pal: the government has already 'enshrined those rights' in a little piece of labour law called the Labour Code. You might want to pick up a copy sometime; it's a helluva read. Oh yeah, and the agency that implements the Code is -guess again -that's right: the Labour Relations Board!! Now, who's "feverish(ly) deluded"?
| Quote: | Lucky Bastard wrote:
Gordo's not always gonna be available as your convenient bogey man; one day he'll be gone; one day the NDP will resume a position of power. |
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | Whoop de doo, it'll be heaven on earth, we can wind up our unions and trust to Ujjal Dosanjh - er, no, he left, didn't he - Glen Clark - ummm wait a sec - all right, maybe we'll hang on to our unions after all. Now that you mention it, I can't recall any NDP government that hasn't legislated striking workers back to work... |
More sarcasm, right? I thought so.
We're clear on one point, though: it appears you have little use for nor trust in any government, be it the Liberals or the NDP. Unfortunately, that's all we've really got around here (with profound apologies to the Greens).
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | Ok, will you accept a compromise? A Labour Ombudsman, appointed by vote of all individual workers in the province, whose sole mandate is to defend workers and unions against injustices practised by governments? |
I have a number of problems with your suggested compromise: first, in no way is there any mention of the "injustices practised by" unscrupulous employers. Why let them off the hook when it's they that are invariably the perpetrators of workplace injustice? I mean really, unionist; who's side are you on here, anyway? (No need to answer that last one).
Secondly, I take issue with your lumping all workers and unions into one big melting pot; as if it goes without saying that the interests of a union are one and the same as those of all "workers". They're not and you know they're not. My personal story illustrates that fact completely.
| Quote: | Lucky Bastard wrote:
Is that what's really sticking in yer craw, unionist; that the interests of the lowly worker might be better served than is presently the case? |
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | Yes, that's it, listen up man, I already told you: I revel in the workers' distress. I chuckle at their failures. It's what wakes me up in the morning. |
I would have thought, more likely, that that's what's been keeping you from getting to sleep at night. (Sorry, I couldn't resist one more)
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | I hope the above has given you some comfort. |
And I hope you'll soon decide to leave comedy to those with a genuine sense of humour.
But I digress:
Thirdly, how would you propose to conduct such a province-wide "vote"? How will the nominating for such a position take place? Who would be eligible to run and how could that person's independence be verified? To me the whole thing seems pretty unworkable and poorly thought out on your part.
Nevertheless, I'll rephrase my original question for you:
Would you not concede that the appointing of an independent -and here I stress independent -Labour Ombudsman, to allow individuals to complain that the Labour Relations Board has sided with an unscrupulous employer, be a huge improvement over the way labour relations is conducted currently, which merely serves to only protect and insulate the employer often at the expense of the worker?
If your answer to that question is still "no" then I'll have to put you down for a "no" on the question posed in my poll.
Thanks for participating. Now, who's next? Anyone?
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unionist
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 2378
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lucky Bastard wrote: |
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | No, you're proposing government oversight of how unions deal with their members...-and I don't really give a damn which government it is. |
But is that not, in fact, what the LRB does on a daily basis? And is not the LRB, by proxy, an arm of "the government"? Are you not, in fact, describing precisely the system that's in place now? Well, of course you are; that much is obvious.[/qb] |
Yes, the LRB is mandated by statute to determine whether unions have fairly represented workers or not. It is independent of government to the same extent as the courts. You don't like its decisions, so you want a government-appointed "ombudsman" to give dissatisfied customers a second kick at the unions. Already the overwhelming majority of DFR complaints (way over 90%) across Canada are dismissed - your proposal would change nothing except to cause unions to waste more time on unfounded complaints. The final results would not change.
| Quote: | unionist wrote: | Quote: | | I trust workers to make decisions for workers and no one else. |
I am to take it, then, that you don't "trust" the LRB "to make decisions for workers"? It seems to me that you and I might be on the same side of "the trench"(?) after all. |
No, the LRB doesn't second-guess the union's decision as to whether a member's grievance should proceed or not. It only ensures that if a union refused to file or progress a grievance, it did so responsibly, not on the basis of discrimination or arbitrariness, etc. The LRBs of all jurisdictions in Canada have no power to decide that a union's decision was "wrong", so long as the union arrived at the decision in a fair and serious fashion. In fact, your very comment here exposes your misunderstanding of the role of the LRB and one of the reasons why you are so frustrated about it.
| Quote: | | I've got some bad news for you: those rights are being violated on a sometimes daily basis by the LRB -apparently, you just refuse to accept that fact. My own rights were so violated but somehow I don't hear you speaking out on my behalf. |
I've read all your decisions (as you know) and I'm not convinced there was any injustice. I'm not talking about the union's later deal with management, because I have never understood (nor have you ever provided information) what precise aims may have motivated that deal.
| Quote: | | I have a number of problems with your suggested compromise: first, in no way is there any mention of the "injustices practised by" unscrupulous employers. Why let them off the hook when it's they that are invariably the perpetrators of workplace injustice? |
Have you forgotten your own proposal? You want a "Labour Ombudsman" who reviews LRB decisions under Section 12 and 13. Those sections deal only with union sins against members - not employer sins against employees. "Injustices practised by" employers are not within the scope of your ombudsman.
| Quote: | | Thirdly, how would you propose to conduct such a province-wide "vote"? How will the nominating for such a position take place? Who would be eligible to run and how could that person's independence be verified? To me the whole thing seems pretty unworkable and poorly thought out on your part. |
I'll take that as a "no" to my offer. I'm amused you aren't worried about "independence" or qualifications when it's the government doing the appointing...
| Quote: | | Would you not concede that the appointing of an independent -and here I stress independent -Labour Ombudsman, to allow individuals to complain that the Labour Relations Board has sided with an unscrupulous employer, be a huge improvement over the way labour relations is conducted currently, which merely serves to only protect and insulate the employer often at the expense of the worker? |
Your proposal is for a second watchdog of union practices, not employer practices. I'm capable of reading Sections 12 and 13 and understanding plain English.
| Quote: | | If your answer to that question is still "no" then I'll have to put you down for a "no" on the question posed in my poll. |
I would have thought that was clear long ago.
ETA: It is Section 14 that deals with complaints filed against employer sins. That section is conspicuously absent from the mandate of your "ombudsman". Not that adding it would make any difference to a fundamentally unsound proposal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ouch
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | Yes, the LRB is mandated by statute to determine whether unions have fairly represented workers or not. It is independent of government to the same extent as the courts. You don't like its decisions, so you want a government-appointed "ombudsman" to give dissatisfied customers a second kick at the unions. |
No, I don't trust the LRB's decisions. That's the fundamental difference, I suppose, between you and me; you do, I don't.
Furthermore, I base that mistrust on personal experience. Have you personally experienced any loss at the hands of this miscreant band of lawyers and labour relations 'types'? Until you can answer that question in the affirmative, as I can, you have no idea what you're talking about.
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | (The LRB) only ensures that if a union refused to file or progress a grievance, it did so responsibly, not on the basis of discrimination or arbitrariness, etc. |
Well, that's the theory. But the practise, in my experience, is something quite different. Again I stress I base this opinion on personal experience.
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | The LRBs of all jurisdictions in Canada have no power to decide that a union's decision was "wrong", so long as the union arrived at the decision in a fair and serious fashion. |
To my mind that that only compounds the problem. That means there is no real oversight to ensure that a union is compelled to make a right decision. I've never understood why that should be -though it certainly reduces, immeasurably, a union's level of accountability to its members.
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | In fact, your very comment here exposes your misunderstanding of the role of the LRB and one of the reasons why you are so frustrated about it. |
No, I'm quite confident in my "understanding of the role of the LRB"; I said in my initial post here at EnMasse: | Quote: | Luck Bastard wrote:
...basically, the Labour Relations Board is essentially in place to uphold and protect the employer's/union's rights -invariably at the expense of the employee's perceived rights. |
As to my being "frustrated", as you put it, it is frustrating when one encounters so much injustice even as the LRB paints its 'happy face' all over the abusive acts of an unscrupulous employer and allows an unprincipled union's 'sweetheart' deal with said employer to stand.
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | I've read all your decisions (as you know) and I'm not convinced there was any injustice. |
I was cheated out of many tens of thousands of dollars in disability benefits by an employer that was proven to have contracted for an insurance policy that didn't conform to its collective agreement obligation to me.
The same employer was also found to have wrongly delegated the task of making the determination of eligibility for those benefits to its insurer, when in fact, such determination was found to reside with the employer.
Those findings by an arbitrator (upheld through two appeals, I'll remind you) are clear contraventions of a collective agreement with respect to the rights of a disabled worker. That's not to mention the fact that said arbitration ran for more than 7 years without ever getting beyond a preliminary stage. Jeez unionist, how do YOU spell injustice?
But what's not included in the "decisions" you've referred to is the manner in which the employer manipulated and orchestrated my claim for disability benefits, ensuring that the "wrongful" determination of my eligibility by its insurer was a fait accompli; that's because my union chose not to even raise that issue in the 'bogus' arbitration it provided for me.
As I've stated before, the way the labour laws are currently set up allows an unscrupulous employer to do whatever it likes with impunity; just so long as it can count on an unprincipled union to allow the employer's transgressions to go unchecked. Such was the case in this instance.
Really, you're not convinced? Well, I guess that settles matters if unionist isn't "convinced".
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | I'm not talking about the union's later deal with management, because I have never understood (nor have you ever provided information) what precise aims may have motivated that deal. |
You refer, of course, to Chuck Puchmayr's "deal with management"; the one that denied me and countless other members of my union justice with respect to the payment of disability benefits.
I reiterate: it was Puchmayr's deal; you'll have to ask him about it. I am not a mind reader and I played no part in making the deal. I can only infer from the terms of the settlement that the union (again, that should read Chuck Puchmayr) did not wish to offer its disabled members any further representation in matters involving the payment of disability benefits.
The Puchmayr deal was an abrogation of the union's duty to its injured and disabled members. He turned his back on me and in so doing effectively delivered a 'stab to the back' of those members.
So, for the umpteenth time, if you're truly interested here's his contact info:
chuck.puchmayr.mla@leg.bc.ca or call him at (250) 387-3655
Unfortunately, he's the only one that can provide you with the answers you seek. That you haven't already sought out Puchmayr's input tells me that your interest in these matters is not genuine in the least.
That lack of genuiness on your part becomes more and more apparent to me. Perhaps that's why you seek to derail the basic premise of this thread with personal attacks on my credibility, as it pertains to the labour relations ordeal I was subjected to.
But that doesn't alter anything in my mind with respect to the injustice that exists for workers. That's really what I'm talking about: injustice.
Yet it's obvious you're quite content with the status quo (i.e. the role of the LRB and the job it's been doing for the unions and the employers). I'm not. I don't think the interests of workers are being well served; not in the least. I believe there is a need for an independent overseer of our labur relations system to ensure those workers' rights and interests are upheld.
Still, I have no need to convince you of anything. So thanks again for stopping by and I'll put you down, again, as a "no".
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbuddy
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I want to add a short post here. This is for unionist, and anyone else who thinks they are up to handling this question.
You have spoken of the LRB's "independence". My position, and this is one I feel strongly enough to be arguing in court, is that the "independence" of which you speak is a total myth. And that is true not only of the Labour Boards but virtually throughout the judicial, quasi-judicial, and the regulatory regimes.
Real independence doesn't just happen. It doesn't materialize as a result of an oath of office. So what is it then that you say ensures real independence of all these powerful people? Take your time. See if you can come up with somethig.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munroe
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 332
Location: Lower Mainland
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Unionist, thanks for taking these two on and making them look rather foolish. LB thinks that a structural change, appointing a "Labour Ombudsman" is a worthy goal. I actually agree, provided the person has enough intestinal fortitude to tell people like LB and and gbuddy to screw off.
That said, maybe LB has an issue with how disabled workers are treated - of that I have no doubt. Trouble is the myopic consideration of a personal beef when there may be an opportunity to work with others to change an unjust system.
GBuddy has no such constituency.
You want workers' organizations to work with you and for you guys - make noise, run for office, make a difference. You aren't CLAC members so you have open rights that do not depend on your "morals".
LB, everything you have said suggests a will to make a difference, but a blindness that continues. Get the hell off your high horse and work with the others who are disabled. Formulate a plan and work out a strategy. If you poison your position with a personal vendetta, then NEVER expect any support from anyone.
Clear enough, LB, I hope so.
_________________
Out of Afghanistan, NOW! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munroe
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 332
Location: Lower Mainland
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A last answer to GB. The only independent person in the world is GB.
Not on my planet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbuddy
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
F minus for reading comprehension munroe.
For those with higher comprehension here’s an interesting item about my favourite group of “independent” thinkers:
This is a Hansard record from when the NDP’s labour board was under assault by the Opposition, and apparently, the media. The Liberal's critic Foghorn Krueger was in top form (see following Page 12805) beating up on the Minister of Labour. In order to fully appreciate what this was about one needs to know the context.
This was following a judgement (from an “independent” judge no doubt) that seems to have taken quite a toll. The Chair of the Board, Keith Oleksiuk, departed abruptly the following year and the NDP’s Joy McFail then started looking for a replacement.
Following a determined (but unsuccessful) nation-wide search, fortune smiled on Joy and she found not one, but two, public-spirited (and experienced) Chairs just one block away from the LRB’s palatial premises at Library Square. Once the Liberals took over, these two graciously stepped aside to allow the formerly ousted Brent Mullin to step in and implement all the long delayed and desperately needed reforms that have given us the impeccably “independent” LRB that British Colombians enjoy today.
Or something like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munroe
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 332
Location: Lower Mainland
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
GB, you obviously don't know the story beyond the reporting in the "independent" media like the Sun.
Twisted.
_________________
Out of Afghanistan, NOW! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | Unionist, thanks for taking these two on and making them look rather foolish. LB thinks that a structural change, appointing a "Labour Ombudsman" is a worthy goal. I actually agree, provided the person has enough intestinal fortitude to tell people like LB and and gbuddy to screw off. |
It seems to me if you need to converse with unionist you could always PM him. Your post adds nothing of value to the subject at hand. Are you trying to say that all you have to offer is personal attacks on me and gbuddy? That's how you're coming across. You first agree with me but only insofar as it enables you to take another swipe at me and gbuddy.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | That said, maybe LB has an issue with how disabled workers are treated - of that I have no doubt. Trouble is the myopic consideration of a personal beef when there may be an opportunity to work with others to change an unjust system. |
There, you did it again: you concede I might be right and then you turn that concession into another shot. It's like you're playing 'good cop/bad cop' -only you're playing both parts. Grow up a little will ya? You're acting like a Grade Sixer.
And, yeah, I do have an issue but it's not confined to "disabled workers", as you say -that's your own myopism showing through.
What I've been talking about is the systemic denial of justice for all workers with respect to what you yourself refer to above as "an unjust system". And I guess you would probably know more about that, given your own background as former member of the LRB. Still, YOU choose to focus on me personally, with reference to what you term my "personal beef".
That's just another way to duck the real issue: injustice for workers. Shoot the messenger, huh munroe? Quack, quack, quack.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | LB, everything you have said suggests a will to make a difference, but a blindness that continues. Get the hell off your high horse and work with the others who are disabled. Formulate a plan and work out a strategy. If you poison your position with a personal vendetta, then NEVER expect any support from anyone.
Clear enough, LB, I hope so. |
Support from whom -you? Don't make me laugh. And what's this crap about a "personal vendetta"? What "high horse"? And what's this "blindness" you're going on about?
Did it ever occur to you that I might HAVE a plan? But do you really think I'd ever share it with the likes of you and unionist? To my mind, you guys are the REAL enemy of working people. You're so entrenched in your respective careers as 'labour relations people' that you've lost all sense of what the labour movement is actually supposed to represent:
Justice for workers; plain and simple.
Now, if you disagree that there's a problem, as I've indicated, with the LRB and the way workers (yes, like me) are routinely allowed to 'fall through the cracks' of the 'system' -well, that's fine and dandy. Just get out of the way of the new paradigm that's coming down the track. And quit with the adolescentile attacks on people with other ideas and opinions than you. Sheesh!
All I've done here was attempt to begin a dialogue about the deficiencies of the labour relations system as we know it. I've put forth a suggestion -albeit one I don't claim to be original -that working people could use a Labour Ombudsman to review and oversee the decisions issued by the LRB.
And for that I've been roundly attacked by you and your pal, unionist. In what way does that make me look foolish? And what has unionist's posts above got to do with gbuddy, anyway; he was responding to me, not gbuddy.
And what the hell has CLAC got to do with any of this? Or is that another 'straw man' to throw out there when you have nothing of substance to offer?
You know, munroe -based on your contradictory post, above -I'm still not "clear" whether to put you down as a "yes" or a "no". So let me know -'cause I do want to put you down, one way or another.
How about we take the focus off my "personal beef" and stick to the actual topic at hand: working people are getting the shaft and that situation needs to be rectified.
Yes or no, munroe? No, let me guess: "Quack, quack, quack, quack..."
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 16607
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm just going to throw this in for fun. 'Cause I'm in a playful mood, dontcha know.
Anyone else wince at the term "Ombudsman"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unionist
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 2378
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tehanu wrote: | I'm just going to throw this in for fun. 'Cause I'm in a playful mood, dontcha know.
Anyone else wince at the term "Ombudsman"? |
Not me. It's a Swedish word and not gender-specific. I know I've heard "ombudsperson", but to me that's like "herstory" - not rectifying discrimination, but either ignorance of the origin or (more likely) playfully making a point.
Of course, maybe I'm just being unduly personipulative tonight... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tehanu wrote: | Quote: | | Anyone else wince at the term "Ombudsman"? |
Good one, T. 
But your point is well taken: why NOT a woman? I'd have no objections provided she was competent and, most importantly, independent.
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unionist
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 2378
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lucky Bastard wrote: |
But your point is well taken: why NOT a woman? I'd have no objections provided she was competent and, most importantly, independent. |
You want to be treated with respect and your views answered with respect - but why do you make such offensive comments? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 16607
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| unionist wrote: | Not me. It's a Swedish word and not gender-specific.
|
Ah, but is it gender-specific in Swedish? Riddle me that.
Etymology and playfulness aside, in English it does imply a male person holding it. I think the term itself is a bit twee, to be honest.
LB, would a woman normally be less competent or independent than a man? (Because that's what I got from your post, but then I thought to myself, self, maybe LB just wants whoever it is holding this hypothetical position should be competent and independent)(Putting aside whether or not I agree that the position is at all needed). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unionist
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 2378
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tehanu wrote: | | unionist wrote: | Not me. It's a Swedish word and not gender-specific.
|
Ah, but is it gender-specific in Swedish? Riddle me that. |
Yes it is, Tehanu, that was my point. For example:
| Quote: | Q. How do you pronounce Ombudsman and where does the name come from?
A. A Scandinavian word from the 19th century that originally referred to a public official - an Ombudsman - who investigated complaints by citizens against the government or its functionaries. Many governments around the world have since created, through legislation, an Ombudsman Office. The Ombudsman role has also been adopted by organizations as diverse as Universities, Colleges, hospitals, utility companies and Fortune 500 corporations. The Swedish word "Ombudsman" is gender-neutral as the "man" translates to the "people" that are assisted by the Ombudsman. You will also hear the term “Ombuds” used when referring to either the office or the person. |
And Wikipedia:
| Quote: | | The origin of the word is found in Old Swedish umbuðsmann (accusative) and the word umbuds man, meaning representative and is not gender specific. |
And from a state government in Australia:
| Quote: | Welcome to the NSW Ombudsman website
The word ‘ombudsman’ dates back to 1809 when the Swedish Parliament created a new official known as the Justitie-Ombudsman. This loosely translates as ‘citizen's defender’ or ‘representative of the people’. In Swedish the word ‘ombudsman’ is without gender and can indicate a person of either sex. |
The word "man" in Swedish - same as in German - means "one", as in "one who represents" (which is the literal meaning of ombudsman). It's not a male. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbuddy
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| munroe wrote: | GB, you obviously don't know the story beyond the reporting in the "independent" media like the Sun.
Twisted. |
Can't say I even recall what the media had to say. This all transpired before my baptism at the LRB. My post linked to the Legislature's official record and to the court judgement.
Being such an independent person yourself, perhaps you could volunteer the untwisted version. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tehanu wrote: | Quote: | | ...maybe LB just wants whoever it is holding this hypothetical position should be competent and independent.. |
Well, actually it's, er, whomever but, yes, that's exactly what I meant. 
Tehanu wrote: | Quote: | | (Putting aside whether or not I agree that the position is at all needed). |
Now, you're just copping out. You should never "put aside" when you have the opportunity to take a side.
munroe wrote: | Quote: |
GB, you obviously don't know the story beyond the reporting in the "independent" media like the Sun.
Twisted. |
gbuddy wrote: | Quote: | Can't say I even recall what the media had to say. This all transpired before my baptism at the LRB. My post linked to the Legislature's official record and to the court judgement.
Being such an independent person yourself, perhaps you could volunteer the untwisted version. |
Yeah, munroe; like he said.
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I almost overlooked this one.
| Quote: | Lucky Bastard wrote:
But your point is well taken: why NOT a woman? I'd have no objections provided she was competent and, most importantly, independent. |
And then..
unionist wrote | Quote: | | You want to be treated with respect and your views answered with respect - but why do you make such offensive comments? |
Can anyone explain to me how my comment could possibly be construed as offensive in some way? Or is this simply a case of unionist 'shit disturbin' for the sake of 'shit disturbin'?
I'm not taking any chances. And so I offer my deepest apologies to incompetent and nonindependent men and women alike; everywhere and for all time.
I really don't know about you unionist; you're sort of reaching if that's the best you've got. You sometimes put me in mind of that old TV commercial advocating higher education; what was it they used to say? -"a mind is a terrible thing to waste".
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munroe
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 332
Location: Lower Mainland
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not going to pick and choose from various posts. It's always the same. Two participants, LB and Gbuddy have agendas and the facts won't sway them and they are not looking for constructive involvement.
It's too bad, they may have ideas to offer and energy that can move the world forward. Looks to me that the cesspools they have magically created have become their lives.
It is sad....so sad....
I guess Unionist my prior thanks was a wrong position. I'm sure the National Citizens Coalition would welcome their input. Clearly they are not worried about the collective rights of workers.
_________________
Out of Afghanistan, NOW! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unionist
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 2378
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lucky Bastard wrote: | Tehanu wrote: | Quote: | | ...maybe LB just wants whoever it is holding this hypothetical position should be competent and independent.. |
Well, actually it's, er, whomever |
Common error on your part, LB, which I would generally pass over in silence, except that you have the gall to "correct" Tehanu's usage when she is right and you are wrong!
Let's deconstruct a bit:
| Quote: | | ... maybe LB just wants {whoever (it is [who is] holding this hypothetical position) should be competent and independent} |
Subject: LB
Verb: wants (transitive)
Object of verb: {whoever (it is [who is] holding this hypothetical position) should be competent and independent}
NOTE: Here is where you made your error, LB. The object is not "whoever", but rather the entire "dependent noun clause" contained within the braces {}.
To continue:
Subject of dependent noun clause: Whoever [that's why it's "whoever", not "whomever" - it's nominative.]
Verb: should be
Predicate: competent and independent
And I'll leave the less relevant portions as an exercise to the reader.
Those interested in pursuing the matter further may find a light-hearted account here.
Clarity of thought requires clarity of expression, and vice versa.
A little learning is a dangerous thing.
- Alexander Pope |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | LB and Gbuddy have agendas and the facts won't sway and they are not looking for constructive involvement. |
Facts? What are these "facts" you speak of? From what I see in your posts, you've done nothing but duck the facts. Quack, quack, quack, quack...
munroe, I would suggest it is you and unionist that have "agendas". I assume you're posting a great deal of this stuff while at 'work' on your BCGEU-owned computer. I wonder what the membership that pays your salary would think if they knew how you actually occupy your time at work and on their dollar? Would they be pleased with your efforts on their behalf?
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | It's too bad, they may have ideas to offer and energy that can move the world forward. |
I do have ideas. I've put forward one with respect to my belief there's a need for an independent Labour Ombudsman.
You, on the other hand, have offered nothing of any substance to the dialogue; nothing but abuse of me and gbuddy. Your input, which is truly negligible, speaks for itself.
Such as this: | Quote: | | "Looks to me that the cesspools they have magically created have become their lives." |
-I mean, what kind of crap is that (no pun intended)? "Magically"? "Cesspools"??
You know nothing about my life, munroe. And still you come on spewing your bullshit, and doing so, IMO, at a Grade 6 level.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | It is sad....so sad.... |
What's truly sad is your apparent refusal to knock off the personal attacks and say something -anything!! -insightful on the subject of the injustice that exists for workers.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | I guess Unionist my prior thanks was a wrong position. I'm sure the National Citizens Coalition would welcome their input. Clearly they are not worried about the collective rights of workers. |
Is this another 'straw man' you've introduced to signal to the faithful? I have no idea who the "National Citizens Coalition" is nor what they stand for.
I do, however, know what I stand for; and I've made that abundantly clear; repeatedly. And yes, I'm far more "worried about" the individual rights of workers -and deservedly so because they're the ones that are truly under attack.
Am I to take it then, that YOU are "worried about the collective rights of workers"??
And yet, despite your purported worry and concern, all you seem to be doing is taking money from those workers in exchange for sitting there at your computer terminal trying, unsuccessfully, to come up with a cogent argument to a proposition I've put forward in good faith.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | I'm not going to pick and choose from various posts. |
But isn't that what, in fact, you've actually been doing? You "pick and choose" constantly that which you'll respond to; so much so that your responses amount to little more than empty rhetoric.
You're very much like the emperor who went about wearing no clothes, so convinced you're covered by the finest cloak of protection. But I don't think anyone's buying your act of 'worry' for "the collective rights of workers". Just keep cashing that paycheque, munroe; while hypocrisy lives on!
To me you appear to be little more than a giant 'wind-bag', considering, so far, your contributions to what I consider to be an important topic for discussion; namely, the injustice that exists for workers.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | It is sad....so sad.... |
Boy oh boy, you got that one right, brother.
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unionist
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 2378
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lucky Bastard wrote: | | munroe, I would suggest it is you and unionist that have "agendas". |
I've tried to be patient. I haven't attacked your character or imputed motives to you. But now you've gone WAY too far, and my patience has worn thin.
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that I overlook your "modern" use of the word "agenda" in the singular, as a "list of things to be done" - as opposed to its Latin plural sense of "things to be done".
Are you accusing me and munroe of having the same agenda, or different agendas (Lord that grates, my Latin master is rolling in her grave)?
Surely, accusing an adversary of having "things to do" doesn't draw much argumentative blood, whether the adversaries have the same things or different things. Where are you going with this?
On the other hand, perhaps you mean to accuse me and munroe of having hidden agendas - or agenda - or agendae? God, no, purporting to re-pluralize a Latin plural is egregious; I take back that last variant; pace Ms. Latin master, or mistress, or whatever.
Well, if our agenda(s) are hidden, where are they?
Over to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tehanu wrote: | Quote: |
...maybe LB just wants whoever it is holding this hypothetical position should be competent and independent.. |
To which I jokingly responded: | Quote: | | Well, actually it's, er, whomever |
so then unionist wrote: | Quote: | | Common error on your part, LB, which I would generally pass over in silence, except that you have the gall to "correct" Tehanu's usage when she is right and you are wrong! |
Ouch. You've gone to a good deal of effort just to show I'm "wrong!", unionist.
Nonetheless, I stand corrected -with apologies to Tehanu.
Now unionist, would you care to explain why you consider the following to be "such (an) offensive comment"? | Quote: | Lucky Bastard wrote:
But your point is well taken: why NOT a woman? I'd have no objections provided she was competent and, most importantly, independent. |
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | You want to be treated with respect and your views answered with respect - but why do you make such offensive comments? |
Are you gonna tell me how that was "such (an) offensive comment"? -or are you going to "pick and choose" the posts you'll respond to, like your buddy munroe?
| Quote: | Lucky Bastard wrote:
munroe, I would suggest it is you and unionist that have "agendas". |
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | I've tried to be patient. I haven't attacked your character or imputed motives to you. But now you've gone WAY too far, and my patience has worn thin. |
Methinks he doth protest too much. And in fairness I was responding to your pal, munroe.
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that I overlook your "modern" use of the word "agenda" in the singular, as a "list of things to be done" - as opposed to its Latin plural sense of "things to be done". |
The quotation marks I used around the word "agendas" signified that it was your friend, munroe who had actually used the word, initially; with reference to me and to gbuddy. You might want to take this up with him.
unionist wrote: | Quote: | Are you accusing me and munroe of having the same agenda, or different agendas (Lord that grates, my Latin master is rolling in her grave)?
Surely, accusing an adversary of having "things to do" doesn't draw much argumentative blood, whether the adversaries have the same things or different things. |
So then, why are you making such a BIG DEAL out of the usage of the word "agendas".
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | On the other hand, perhaps you mean to accuse me and munroe of having hidden agendas |
No, not at all -I think you're just being paranoid.
unionist wrote: | Quote: | ... - or agenda - or agendae? God, no, purporting to re-pluralize a Latin plural is egregious; I take back that last variant; pace Ms. Latin master, or mistress, or whatever.
Well, if our agenda(s) are hidden, where are they? |
Now you're acting insane.
But this digression on your part has little to do with the topic at hand, does it? In fact, it's simply a way to distract from the fact that there exists a real problem, with respect to injustice for working people.
It seems to me that you and munroe's respective agenda is hardly "hidden" at all; but includes talking about anything and everything BUT the subject matter of this thread.
And for the record, my dictionary defines agenda as a: noun, pl. of agendum. You could rightly say that you've managed to put the dum[b] into agendum.
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unionist
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 2378
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lucky Bastard wrote: |
Now unionist, would you care to explain why you consider the following to be "such (an) offensive comment"? | Quote: | Lucky Bastard wrote:
But your point is well taken: why NOT a woman? I'd have no objections provided she was competent and, most importantly, independent. |
|
Oh God, do I really have to spell this out? I guess so.
You proposed an ombudsman. When someone says, what about a woman, you say: Well ok, as long as she's competent and independent. You never said that about the ombudsman in the first place! Someone else could say, "could it be a Muslim", and you might reply, "well all right, but they'd have to be a Canadian citizen..." If you don't see how it's offensive, I'm gradually going to give up on you - even though I do feel solidarity with you.
Anyway, Tehanu got it right, but she was being unduly polite as usual:
| Quote: | | LB, would a woman normally be less competent or independent than a man? |
You missed that altogether I guess. Ah well, no matter.
| Quote: | | The quotation marks I used around the word "agendas" signified that it was your friend, munroe who had actually used the word, initially; with reference to me and to gbuddy. You might want to take this up with him. |
My post about "agendas" was just a joke. Sorry, next time I'll start out by saying: "The following is a joke." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munroe
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 332
Location: Lower Mainland
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LB, I guess I'm forced to reply to one comment. Why you think my participation is on work time at a work owned computer is beyond me. Just a cheap shot in my mind.
The Labour movement doesn't need a "nanny" to oversee its essential work; particularly not a Campbell appointed nanny. It also doesn't need to be second guessed on how it handles individual grievances. Almost every union now has an internal review process that does consider the merits of a grievance.
If members do not agree with terms in a collective agreement, they can oppose ratification. If members do not agree with how grievances are handled, they can run for office. If they have particular issues, such as how people on disability are treated, they can organize and lobby for changes, both with the politicians and for support of their fellow members.
_________________
Out of Afghanistan, NOW! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbuddy
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That “agenda” may be one of the (countless) English words that were inherited from Latin and that the last letter would mean it was the Latin plural is relevant to absolutely nothing worthy of discussion here.
No one cares, unionist, what you studied in kindergarten.
However, that you and munroe have an agenda is obvious. So do I, and my agenda is obvious. Unlike you I don’t need to deny it.
Now munroe, as I understand it, is employed by a very large union and is a member of another very large union. He has also informed us that he was a Vice Chair at the LRB.
No one therefore could be better qualified to be an apologist for the unions and the entire labour relations community. I don’t propose to get into a debate about the evidence that unions are democratic institutions (because there isn’t any). As I said before an oath of office isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The same point can be made about constitutions. The most famous constitution in the world guarantees that the United States is a democracy.
How about that. Maybe you two have more in common with George Dubya than you thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
unionist wrote: | Quote: | Oh God, do I really have to spell this out? I guess so.
You proposed an ombudsman. When someone says, what about a woman, you say: Well ok, as long as she's competent and independent. You never said that about the ombudsman in the first place! |
That's because I think it's a given that any ombudsman -man or woman -ought to be competent and independent. What's so offensive about that?
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | Someone else could say, "could it be a Muslim", and you might reply, "well all right, but they'd have to be a Canadian citizen..." |
But that WASN'T the question posed to me, was it? That's just something your twisted little mind came up with -isn't it? Furthermore, it's YOU, again, that is presupposing what I "might reply" to such a question, should it be asked of me; which it wasn't.
It appears to me you've begun to stray into a world of fantasy, unionist; it's very much like your fantasy that workplace injustice doesn't really exist and everything is just fine the way it is.
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | If you don't see how it's offensive, I'm gradually going to give up on you - even though I do feel solidarity with you. |
You "feel solidarity" with me? Now that IS "offensive". Because you've done little more than put me down and attempted to cast suspicion on me ever since I got here.
Perhaps you'll recall your words: | Quote: | | The more LB weaves his tale, the more I start to believe that maybe there was some merit to the deal the union struck. |
What's truly "offensive" is your putting your own perverse, religious 'spin' on what amounts to a sincere and innocuous response to a simple query by Tehanu.
unionist wrote: | Quote: | Anyway, Tehanu got it right, but she was being unduly polite as usual:
Quote:
LB, would a woman normally be less competent or independent than a man?
You missed that altogether I guess. Ah well, no matter.
|
"No matter", you say? Hey, I missed nothing. You just went looking for an opportunity to reprimand me -and for what?
unionist, you want to be treated with respect and your views answered with respect - but why do YOU make such offensive comments?
For the record then, here's Tehanu's actual quote in its entirety:
Tehanu wrote: | Quote: | | LB, would a woman normally be less competent or independent than a man? (Because that's what I got from your post, but then I thought to myself, self, maybe LB just wants whoever it is holding this hypothetical position should be competent and independent)(Putting aside whether or not I agree that the position is at all needed). |
She got it -why didn't you?
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | My post about "agendas" was just a joke. |
And what a laugh riot it turned out to be.
I've said it before: you might want to leave the comedy to those who know what they're doing. I mean, just look at what happened to 'Kramer' last year -and he was supposedly a professional comedian. Incidentally, was your post above, in reference to a "Muslim" ombudsman, another crack at being funny?
'Cause I, for one, didn't get it. And I'll remind you -there is nothing funny about workplace injustice. Your trying to inject 'humour' into this thread is rightly viewed by me as another feeble attempt to distract from the very serious issues raised by me.
Just as long as so-called 'progressives' like yourself and munroe continue to keep your collective 'heads in the sand' with respect to workplace injustice, unscrupulous employers everywhere will continue to abuse their employees who, in turn, will remain as "Second Class Citizens".
Shame on you, funnyman.
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unionist
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 2378
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've met people whose protests against injustice go no farther than their own personal situations. That's quite legitimate, because no one is obliged to stand up for others, and everyone has a right to be treated fairly.
But then there are those who go on crusades about injustice - and yet, they're still only talking about themselves. They are few and far between. My experience is that they are given short shrift by the majority of workers, who see them for what they are.
No wonder that such rare individuals see great evil in majority decisions by workers, democratic election of workplace representatives, and stands taken by trade unions which favour the collective interest of workers.
No wonder that such individuals see the need for outsiders, not answerable to the workers, to monitor and override the workers' decisions.
If those individuals (as munroe has persuasively suggested) showed, instead, that they cared about the injustices visited on others as well - and if they appealed to workers on that basis - they might find no end of sympathy and solidarity for their cause.
But extreme self-absorption is a difficult condition to treat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | I've met people whose protests against injustice go no farther than their own personal situations. That's quite legitimate, because no one is obliged to stand up for others, and everyone has a right to be treated fairly. |
So, who hasn't met people like that? It might be, in fact, a fairly accurate description of yourself, n'est ce pas?
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | But then there are those who go on crusades about injustice - and yet, they're still only talking about themselves. They are few and far between. My experience is that they are given short shrift by the majority of workers, who see them for what they are. |
So whom are you referring to? Not me, I hope. Because, if that's the case, you don't know me; and you certainly don't know what you're talking about.
Long before any of my own trials and tribulations had barely gotten under way, I got up at a union meeting in 1995 to speak on behalf of my union brother and former Labatt employee, Mike Nunas who -much the same as me -had first been denied disability benefits, and then was unceremoniously fired. Unlike me, however, Mr. Nunas was never provided an arbitration. Like a number of Local 300 members, his grievance was abandoned by the union.
I later prepared an extensive DFR complaint for him in which I submitted to the LRB on our behalf: "..we are inextricably linked by a number of remarkable similarities to our respective stories -by time and circumstance, and by a familiar cast of characters...".
You should also know that I continue to act (with his permission) as Mr. Nunas' spokesman with respect to all matters related to the rights of disabled members of our union.
Here's his story if you're truly interested, unionist.
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | No wonder that such rare individuals see great evil in majority decisions by workers, democratic election of workplace representatives, and stands taken by trade unions which favour the collective interest of workers. |
Well, now I'm sure you're not referring to me; because not one word of what you've said is even applicable to me.
My chief complaint with my own union was not because they took a stand which "favour(ed) the collective interest of (brewery) workers"; quite the opposite, in fact. My "beef", as it's been referred to here at EnMasse, was with the union's virtual capitulation to Labatt; a move that only served the interests of Labatt and virtually kneecapped the union's disabled members in the process.
And there was no "majority decision by (any) workers"; the decision to 'sell out' to Labatt was made by a guy named Chuck Puchmayr. It was Chuck Puchmayr, with the acquiescence of but one other union official, that managed to 'steal defeat from the jaws of victory' for the Brewery Workers' Union Local 300.
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | No wonder that such individuals see the need for outsiders, not answerable to the workers, to monitor and override the workers' decisions. |
But that's my point completely: that Chuck Puchmayr has never been made to "answer" to the workers whose rights and interests he undermined and, in fact, negated. And that's only because the Labour Relations Board has allowed Puchmayr to 'screw' his union brothers and sisters so thoroughly and without the need for any accountability, whatsoever; hence the need for some real oversight of such matters.
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | If those individuals (as munroe has persuasively suggested) showed, instead, that they cared about the injustices visited on others as well - and if they appealed to workers on that basis - they might find no end of sympathy and solidarity for their cause. |
Based on your numerous posts I'd have to assume that YOU'RE the type of "individual" to which you refer. I've certainly found no "sympathy" nor "solidarity" for my cause, which extends far beyond my personal plight.
As you well know, unionist, my own position has been fairly consistent:
And on another occasion: | Quote: | But by all means, take my personal involvement out of the equation completely; forget about any personal claims I might still have on Labatt -just consider the Puchmayr deal and all it promises.
Then consider the ramifications the deal holds for the hundreds of other members of my union, all with identical collective agreement language in their respective collective agreements and who've, consequently, been shortchanged by Charlie Puchmayr's 'sweetheart deal' with Labatt.
Disabled workers in several other plants may continue to be scrutinized, even demonized, and possibly bullied back to work too early by a third-party insurer -despite the existence of an arbitration award that indicates for an insurer to do so in the first 104 weeks of disability would be a breach of the collective agreement. Ouch! That hurts. |
That particular post also contains an excerpt from a letter I wrote to Attorney General Wally Oppal on behalf of my friend and union brother Dick Findlay, for whom I also wrote a substantial Human Rights Complaint and for whom I have acted on numerous occasions in the role of his advocate.
You might wish to read it again before you go casting any more uninformed aspersions regarding my personal efforts in the pursuit of justice for other disabled members of my union. Then you might not readily make such asinine comments as this:
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | But extreme self-absorption is a difficult condition to treat. |
But not nearly as difficult to treat as extreme self-righteousness. It's like you said above:
unionist wrote: | Quote: | | ...no one is obliged to stand up for others.. |
It's just that some of us actually see it as our duty to do so. Your pathetic attempts to paint me otherwise is more indicative of your own apparent shortcomings as a representative of working men and women. You talk the talk, while I walk the walk -that's plainly evident.
Anyway, I've duly noted your opposition to a Labour Ombudsman. Was there something else you wanted from me? If not, then why not just move along, dude; your contribution to the discussion has been, so far, negligible.
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbuddy
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| unionist wrote: |
But then there are those who go on crusades about injustice - and yet, they're still only talking about themselves. They are few and far between. My experience is that they are given short shrift by the majority of workers, who see them for what they are.
No wonder that such rare individuals see great evil in majority decisions by workers, democratic election of workplace representatives, and stands taken by trade unions which favour the collective interest of workers.
No wonder that such individuals see the need for outsiders, not answerable to the workers, to monitor and override the workers' decisions.
|
Your track record, unionist, shows that you will attack every individual that speaks publicly about their own experiences and how they reflect on the larger problem. If a thousand such persons posted here you would attack each of them in the same manner, in each case seeking specific "facts" about them to focus on. No one could be as self-deluded as you pretend to be.
There are no "majority" decisions. That is precisely the point. The majority is shut out -"locked-out" if you will - by a self-annointed, self-perpetuating elite. Presumably you are either a member of that elite, or perhaps more likely, wish to be.
As you are from Montreal and not B.C., you may be unfamiliar with the background to the labour ombudsman idea. It was defined in the legislation put forward by the NDP back in the 70's when Paul Weiler (who long ago returned to Harvard) took a leading role in developing the labour relations regime we still have in place. You might want to get hold of his book, "Reconcilable Differences", and read it. You might actually learn something.
The provisions that purported to define a labour ombudsman were never implemented. The notion has been dredged up by various politicians and others periodically ever since, whenever doing so served their self-interests.
Some years ago, I personally received an email from Joy McPhail commenting that she and her party were looking at the idea of a labour ombudsman "going forward". If her party had ever moved forward on any issue, even an inch, she and the rest of them would have been thrown to the floor.
One gets just a little tired of such empty rhetoric, especially after it is repeated for several decades.
The central issue that I am personally pursuing involves a piece of legislation obviously constructed by labour insiders specifically to secure them immunity from the members they claim to represent. There are already hundreds of cases that have been thrown out using that legislation. There is no provision like it to be found anywhere outside the B.C. Labour Code. Check your own provincial labour statute. Furthermore it relied upon an archaic Latin term precisely because none of its victims would know what it meant. I have already pointed out that the Ontario Board has consistently articulated a definition that is the opposite of what the B.C. labour relations community says it is. Then there is the little fact - an indisputable fact - that it was subsequently modified surreptitiously and illegally. That gets us into the realm of the Criminal Code.
You have never answered any of those points - because there is no answer except to admit the truth. Until you can do that, you are wasting your time pretending to engage in discussion with us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | LB, I guess I'm forced to reply to one comment. Why you think my participation is on work time at a work owned computer is beyond me. Just a cheap shot in my mind. |
You're not "forced" to do anything. Not for me and not for anybody. You pick and choose and pick and choose and "quack, quack, quack, quack"...
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | The Labour movement doesn't need a "nanny" to oversee its essential work; particularly not a Campbell appointed nanny. |
Leave Gordo out of the equation, by all means. But don't try telling me the entire labour relations 'community' -not just the Labour 'movement' -doesn't require some proper oversight. It does and you know it.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | It also doesn't need to be second guessed on how it handles individual grievances. Almost every union now has an internal review process that does consider the merits of a grievance. |
Not the union I belong to -or more rightly belonged to; if they don't like the stuff you espouse, then they just give you the boot.
I've been recently ousted (after some 33 years as a member) for essentially one reason and one reason only: because I've had the temerity to raise questions of the union's leadership that they don't want answering: questions about the settlement of my grievances, the actual cost to the membership of the abandoned arbitration, why the amount of money paid to the union's lawyers has literally doubled; that kinda stuff.
The logic of removing me from the union goes like this: if I'm not a member, then there is no need to respond to the issues I raise; hell, they don't even have to let me into a meeting.
The same tactic was employed in respect to my friend Dick Findlay. Findlay, also suffering with a disability, lost his membership in the Brewery Workers' Union Local 300 as a result of 'his allowing his membership to lapse' -or so says the union's president, Roy Graham.
The rationale is that Findlay ought to have taken out a withdrawal card, notwithstanding, as a disabled member the union's constitution doesn't require him to.
Roy Graham says that Findlay didn't obtain his "disability status" until "after" his membership had lapsed. This, of course, wasn't true because Findlay had been determined to be disabled -by Molson's own medical advisor, no less -on the day before Molson's fired him.
This is the kind of crap members in my union have been exposed to for years -thanks in large part to your slimy cohorts at the Labour Relations Board for allowing such abuse to go on unhindered.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | If members do not agree with terms in a collective agreement, they can oppose ratification. |
In the case of the Brewery Workers' Union, the problem is not "with terms in a collective agreement" -it's that the terms are not being adhered to, neither by the employers nor by the union.
And in the one occasion when the union has actually had the employer (Labatt) on the ropes (as was the case with the "Second Taylor" award in my case) a rat like Chuck Puchmary comes along and agrees to nullify the union's win.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | If members do not agree with how grievances are handled, they can run for office. |
You can't run for jack-shit, munroe, if you're not a member or if you've been forced to take a withdrawal card (by definition, a suspension of one's membership) as was the case with me.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | If they have particular issues, such as how people on disability are treated, they can organize and lobby for changes, both with the politicians and for support of their fellow members. |
Good luck with that campaign -especially considering the Opposition party's Labour Critic, Chuck Puchmayr is the main culprit in the sordid debacle. How ya gonna get around that, munroe?!?
You see, munroe all your suggestions above amount to nothing more than empty rhetoric -airey-fairey theories. In the real world -in my world -they have no basis in reality. And as long as your buddies down at the LRB continue to prop up such unprincipled union conduct as I've been witness to, said unprincipled conduct will continue ad infinitum.
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it: the way the labour laws are currently set up allows an unscrupulous employer to do whatever it likes with impunity; just so long as it can count on an unprincipled union to allow the employer's transgressions to go unchecked. The Labour Relations Board routinely permits the abuse of the unionized worker and both the employers and the unions know they can rely on that fact to do as they so please.
That's the reality of the situation. And you know it to be true; and if you should deny it then, I suggest, you're equally a part of the hypocrisy, a player in the hoax that's for too long been allowed to hoodwink unionized workers into thinking their rights and interests are sufficiently protected; because they're not.
And I'll remind you again that you, as an employee of my union's 'sister' union -BCGEU - has an obligation -no, in fact, a duty -to see that the injustices long perpetrated on members of the Brewery Workers' Union Local 300 are addressed and rectified.
That's called adhering to REAL union principles and it's what a real 'progressive' labour man would do; as opposed to simply burying your head in the sand; and doing NOTHING.
See no evil, hear no evil; "quack, quack, quack"....that's you and your ilk, munroe.
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munroe
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 332
Location: Lower Mainland
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh dear, I'm SO outed.
GB, come back when someone actually recognizes your "legal" understanding.
LB, sorry about your bitterness, but you never actually say what you received in settlement. Did you get a cash payout and if so, how much? I've looked, never found the actual agreement....
By the way, I'm off work and I paid for this computer, LB (as always).
No, I'm not joining your narrow and personal campaign against one individual. Forget it.
As for your thoughts on something more, find a conduit - make it your issue ---Disability is a very complex issue; too complex. Human Rights law requires accommodation...another complication.
I broke my leg and could not work or drive. When it mended I went back to work. You did what? Why not work or retrain? A friend ruined a shoulder and we showed how he could return with certain mechanical assistance - he's back....LB, what happened, what was the actual settlement...
Complain if you want, but NEVER, believe me NEVER turn your mind to the real world...............................GB lost his place years ago.
I have no desire to continue this thread and hear your or GB's anti-union rants.
_________________
Out of Afghanistan, NOW! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | LB, sorry about your bitterness.. |
I don't believe for a moment you're "sorry". In any event, you've mistaken my genuine anger for "bitterness"; because I'm not bitter at all -I'm PISSED OFF!! You would be too if you'd experienced the hard times I've endured at the hands of Labatt and the Brewery Workers' Union Local 300. They played me like a 'fiddle'; can there be any denying that fact?
Tell me true, munroe: have you ever heard of another arbitration that dragged on for more than 7 years without ever moving past the preliminary stages? That's what I was exposed to. And in the final analysis, nothing came of it; I can only conclude that that was what the parties had in mind all along; based on the actual settlement reached.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | ..you never actually say what you received in settlement. Did you get a cash payout and if so, how much? I've looked, never found the actual agreement... |
Well, of course the union has never publicized the Puchmayr/Labatt agreement -for obvious reasons. Hell, it took a DFR complaint by me to get the union to even provide me with a copy. But as you know, I posted the full text of Chuck Puchmayr's settlement with Labatt after it had been entered as an exhibit and was considered to be in public domain.
As I've previously stated, that deal provided no relief for me, whatsoever. I received nothing -zilch -not even some notification from the union that an agreement had been struck.
It is true I did reach a settlement in my own lawsuit against Manulife Financial -for which I paid more than $40,000.00 (that's forty thousand dollars of my own money) in legal contingency fees. Unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to reveal the amount of that settlement due to the confidentiality I had to agree to in order to effect the settlement with Manulife.
And believe me, I would much rather have gone to trial with Manulife; and would have, had I had the estimated $25,000.00 it would have cost me to do so. Unfortunately, after more than 7 years of subsisting on welfare, I didn't have that kind of money. But that was a matter between me and Manulife (whom I sued for their own acts of bad faith) and to which the union was not a party to. If you'd like, I'd be happy to elaborate on those acts of bad faith; my settlement with Manulife does not preclude me from doing so -only the actual terms of that settlement are confidential.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | By the way, I'm off work and I paid for this computer, LB (as always). |
Well, that's great! I hope you're getting your disability benefits (if you're, indeed, eligible for same). And I hope you get better soon; I sincerely mean that, munroe.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | No, I'm not joining your narrow and personal campaign against one individual. |
And that would be in reference to who -Chuck Puchmayr? Give me a break. I've got much bigger 'fish to fry' than that little 'weasel'.
It's you that chooses to repeatedly focus solely on the deplorable role that Chuck Puchmayr has played in my personal story. But can I help it if he was, in fact, the one that was ultimately responsible for 'selling out' the disabled members of the Brewery Workers' Union Local 300?
Am I supposed to 'button my lip' and never mention how he undermined the rights and interests of countless members of his and my union? Sorry, but that would be doing a gross disservice to union members everywhere -people have a RIGHT to know about this 'wolf' in 'sheep's' clothing. And I have a DUTY to inform them whether you like it or not.
As I told you once before in another thread: | Quote: | | I couldn't give a crap about that "scoundrel" -for me Chuck Puchmayr's merely a convenient starting point to initiate a needed dialogue on the mistreatment of disabled workers, given Puchmayr’s personal connection to and involvement with these egregious matters in the context of his own recent union background. |
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | As for your thoughts on something more, find a conduit - make it your issue |
My cause -or "issue", as you like to put it -is not limited to just disabled workers, as you continue to suggest. Unfortunately, I just happen to fall into that particular category.
No, my "issue" is plain and simple: justice for workers; ALL workers; everywhere. And that justice is sorely lacking and for which I hold the Labour Relations Board chiefly responsible. Why? Because it, evidently, doesn't hold 'dirt-bags' like Chuck Puchmayr accountable; not to the union members whose interests he once swore to protect and uphold.
As for your suggestion I find a "conduit" -well, I'm not really sure what that even means.
My World Book Encyclopedia defines "conduit" as: | Quote: | conduit, noun.
1. a channel or pipe for carrying liquids long distances; aqueduct or canal.
2. a tube or underground passage for electric wires or cables.
3. (Archaic.) a fountain. |
????
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | ---Disability is a very complex issue; too complex. |
No it's not. It's not "complex" at all. Disability is really very simple -one either is or isn't. A competent physician can easily make that determination with little difficulty.
It's only the scumbag lawyers and Human Resources types (the ones who make it difficult to collect disability benefits) and the arbitrators and LRB vice-chairs (more lawyers, generally) drawing their exhorbitant salaries -THEY'RE the ones that have made "disability" a "complex issue", as you say.
That's where the real problem lies for the disabled worker -it's all those other 'parties' with their vested interests, their own agenda that, truly, make life for the disabled worker a misery.
That's a compelling enough reason for instituting a Labour Ombudsman, in my opinion. There is a real need for some proper oversight to ensure a disabled worker doesn't 'fall through the cracks' -there's a well-used labour relations term for ya -or fall victim to a 'backstabbing rat' like Chuck Puchmayr; as in the case of me.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | I broke my leg and could not work or drive. When it mended I went back to work. You did what? Why not work or retrain?....LB, what happened |
I was born with a congenital condition: four of the nerves (C5, 6, 7 and eight) coming off my cervical spine had grown between two bands of cartilage that served to "scissor" those nerves causing (apparent) permanent nerve damage.
My father had the same condition. It resulted in his untimely death at the age of 58 when, as a result of ingesting copious, daily amounts of aspirin for his pain, he developed a duodenal ulcer (much the same, I'm told, as my friend at Labatt who died at age 52) and hemorrhaged; my father died about a month later after undergoing three surgeries to remove portions of his stomach. He essentially died of complications, too weak after a month without food, to withstand so much surgical intervention.
The condition from which I suffer is called thoracic outlet syndrome. In 1997 after being repeatedly misdiagnosed I finally underwent radical surgery to remove my first rib (and the attached offending structures). However, the damage done to the nerves and the muscles they innervate remains. As a result, I experience constant pain -often excruciating -and without relief.
That's been my life for more than 13 years, now. The stress of the years of litigation I was subjected to (as well as the extreme poverty that accompanied those years) only served to increase my discomfort.
As I said above, I've been unable to work for more than 13 years. So what could I be retrained to do? And who's going to pay for that retraining? -certainly not my union.
Then there's the matter of being off work for so long and being unable to say to a prospective employer: "yes, I had this condition -but it's all behind me now"; because it isn't and it may never be. C'est la vie; c'est ma vie.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | Complain if you want, but NEVER, believe me NEVER turn your mind to the real world... |
I don't complain; I just get through every day the best I can. And I have no idea what you mean by: | Quote: | | NEVER, believe me NEVER turn your mind to the real world... |
"Never turn (my) "mind to the real world"?? Thanks for the advice(??) I guess...??
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | I have no desire to continue this thread and hear your...anti-union rants. |
No one's forced you to participate in this thread. You do so of your own volition.
However, I do take exception to your mischaracterising my posts as "anti-union rants". I've been a union man virtually my entire adult life -I'm currently having to fight my union to retain my right to my union membership. I consider my membership in my union to be an integral part of who I am.
Thus, I reject any such notion that the position I've put forward herein, with respect to my desire to see the institution of a Labour Ombudsman. should be so misconstrued by you as an "anti-union rant" -such a perversion of my true position is only to be expected, I suppose, from a former member of the Labour Relations Board.
But I'll put my "pro union" background up against yours any day of the week, munroe. I've paid my dues. I walked picket lines. I've served as a Shop Steward and gone to bat for guys getting pushed around by supervisory pricks. I've even put a non-union job on the line by refusing to cross picket lines. As well I've faced suspension by my former employer Labatt for honouring a picket line that was later found to be non bona fide.
Like I've said previously: I don't just 'talk the talk' like you and your kind; I walk the walk.
It's the difference between the empty rhetoric that comes out of your mouth and my unswerving commitment to real union principles and real justice for all workers. When it comes right down to being a real union man, munroe, you couldn't even carry my old work boots; certainly not with your LRB background -face it, munroe, you're a hack: you're tainted and you always will be.
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munroe
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 332
Location: Lower Mainland
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, LB, you did what almost every disabled person was forced to do (not all - it is contract language dependent) and you settled a suit. So the issue is done. You accepted a financial amount and your "contingency" suggests it was in the range of about $120,000.
How much was re-training $$? How much was taxable? How much bought the computer to attack the person who may have been in past responsible for even having an LTD policy?
I have tried and tried to bring you back to the real issues and you have continuously diverted to your personal vendetta. Too bad, so sad, you could be a leader, but instead you are simply an irritant.
I post to bring you home, but I have a limit. You are not unusual in any sense and it does show a weakness in how society addresses disability. I know, I have had my own issues.
One last opportunity - be positive and organise for change or continue your personal campaign.
_________________
Out of Afghanistan, NOW! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | OK, LB, you did what almost every disabled person was forced to do (not all - it is contract language dependent) and you settled a suit. So the issue is done. |
Says you.
I, however, have a different take on the matter. I would suggest the only "issue" that's "done" is a private matter between Manulife Financial and me.
There are numerous other issues that YOU obviously do not wish to contend with; issues concerning one Chuck Puchmayr and his underhanded 'sweetheart' deal with Labatt that only served to undermine the rights and interests of my brothers and sisters in the Brewery Workers Union Local 300.
You don't wish to address that issue, do you munroe?
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | How much was re-training $$? |
Nada -zilch.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | How much was taxable? |
That's none of your business.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | How much bought the computer to attack the person who may have been in past responsible for even having an LTD policy? |
The cost of my computer is also none of your business; and it was purchased, among other things, to enable me to prepare my extensive DFR complaint.
I have never "attacked" anyone in my life, and certainly not the union brothers who, several decades past, fought to secure the LTD benefits that I worked and paid dues for; and was ultimately shortchanged on.
But if you're suggesting that Chuck Puchmayr was in any way "responsible for (my) even having an LTD policy", then you're sadly deluded, munroe; and you haven't been paying attention to all I've been telling you.
Get it straight, man: Chuck Puchmayr rescinded -that means 'took away', in layman's language -the workers' right to grieve on matters of disability benefits. Puchmayr's deal was nothing less than a total abrogation of the union's duty to its members. But like I said: you don't wish to address that issue, do you munroe?
I'll remind you again, Puchmayr also, in the course of surreptitiously settling my grievances, effectively buried a winning arbitration award that the members of my union paid dearly to acquire and in so doing, has allowed the employers' insurers to make decisions regarding eligibility for disability benefits, notwithstanding an arbitrator's decision that says that is unlawful.
To my mind that makes him a party to a criminal conspiracy to defraud the members of Local 300 of their rights with respect to disability benefits.
By all means suck up to the little prick, munroe -your doing so might some day, somehow serve to advance your 'labour relations career'. But NEVER attempt to put that 'dirt bag' of a politician, Puchmayr on a pedestal, at least not when you're addressing me.
You see, I know 'Charlie Pantsonfire' all too well -obviously to you, he's possibly seen as a 'meal ticket'; or so, perhaps, you hope.
In any event, I'd advise you not to trust the dirty 'rat' -'cause he'll sell you out in a heartbeat; just like he did to the members of his own union. Chew on that awhile.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | I have tried and tried to bring you back to the real issues and you have continuously diverted to your personal vendetta. |
I would suggest you've done little more than avoid "the real issues" -I refer, of course, to employer-perpetrated workplace injustice and the pressing need for a fair and independent Labour Ombudsman. I have no "vendetta" -defined as a "feud" in my dictionary -I merely speak the truth; that's something you're unable to deal with so you're forced to write it off as something radio rahim might term "sour grapes", with references to "anti-unionism" and such nonsense.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | Too bad, so sad, you could be a leader, but instead you are simply an irritant. |
I could easily say the same of you, but for your fawning obsequiousness to a 'backstabber' like Puchmayr - believe me that's far, far more irritating; to me at least.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | You are not unusual in any sense and it does show a weakness in how society addresses disability. |
It's not "society", munroe; that's got to be your biggest 'cop out' to date. You certainly need to take ownership of your own role in these matters, munroe.
Because in reality, it's the so-called 'labour types', guys like Puchmayr and you and, especially, your colleagues down at the Labour Relations Board that are fucking things up for workers with disability issues.
And things will remain that way until guys like you and the Puchmayrs of the world finally begin to show some accountability to the workers that depend and rely on you for justice and decency.
But apparently words like "accountability" and "justice" and "decency" are beyond your ken -it's so much easier to put the blame on "society" than to accept your own role in the debacle, isn't it, munroe?
"Society", huh? -I'm afraid that sounds just a little too convenient for you and Chuck and your friends at the LRB; and, I might add, quite a pathetic response to the systemic injustice that exists.
I said it before: if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. You just don't appear to have balls enough to admit it.
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke
Last edited by Lucky Bastard on Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CUPE_Reformer
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 140
Location: Real Solidarity
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
CUPE_reformer wrote: | Quote: | Lucky Bastard:
I noticed the Brewery Winery & Distillery Workers Union Local 300 website. |
Yeah, I think they finally got around to getting it up and running about 2 or 3 years ago; that was after I suggested, at the September 2000 nomination meeting, that the union enter the 21st century and provide its members with an online presence.
At the time, the idea was roundly discredited by the union's former president, Tom Smith because, as Tom put it: "most of the membership didn't have access to the internet" -notwithstanding that computer stations were being provided at work by both Labatt (in the main lunchroom) and Molson (which, I'm led to believe had a dedicated "computer room" for use by its employees.
You'll note that there appears to be no upcoming meetings scheduled, notwithstanding that the General Executive is due to meet in a couple of weeks. I do recall last Spring seeing notification of a scheduled General Membership meeting that was posted a mere three days before the meeting. Thus, it appears the union would prefer its members didn't actually show up for meetings -I guess it reduces the likelihood of ever having to answer important questions.
Incidentally, the web master for the site is my friend and union brother John Barker of Molson. It might be of interest to EnMasse members that John has his own web site. It's called No More Tiers and is dedicated to "fighting two tier wage discrimination" -it's worth taking a look.
And if you take the time to write to John he'll often respond with his own commentary in the form of an article on his site's front page. He did so for me when I first stumbled upon his site. You can read for yourself John's article entitled Labatt Blues for even more insight into the challenges faced by the members of Local 300.
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
CUPE_reformer wrote: | Quote: | Lucky Bastard:
I noticed the Brewery Winery & Distillery Workers Union Local 300 website. |
Yeah, I think they finally got around to getting it up and running about 2 or 3 years ago; that was after I suggested, at the September 2000 nomination meeting, that the union enter the 21st century and provide its members with an online presence.
At the time, the idea was roundly discredited by the union's former president, Tom Smith because, as Tom put it: "most of the membership didn't have access to the internet" -notwithstanding that computer stations were being provided at work by both Labatt (in the main lunchroom) and Molson (which, I'm led to believe had a dedicated "computer room" for use by its employees.
You'll note that there appears to be no upcoming meetings scheduled, notwithstanding that the General Executive is due to meet in a couple of weeks. I do recall last Spring seeing notification of a scheduled General Membership meeting that was posted a mere three days before the meeting. Thus, it appears the union would prefer its members didn't actually show up for meetings -I guess it reduces the likelihood of ever having to answer important questions.
Incidentally, the web master for the site is my friend and union brother John Barker of Molson. It might be of interest to EnMasse members that John has his own web site. It's called No More Tiers and is dedicated to "fighting two tier wage discrimination" -it's worth taking a look. He writes well.
And if you take the time to write to John he'll often respond with his own commentary in the form of an article on his site's front page. He did so for me when I first stumbled upon his site. You can read for yourself John's article entitled Labatt Blues for even more insight into the challenges faced by the members of Local 300.
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munroe
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 332
Location: Lower Mainland
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing new or interesting. Too bad. Thought there may be a person with a story and balls.
nothing, but a malcontent with money....Me, Can you spend it, LB....spend.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | Nothing new or interesting. Too bad. Thought there may be a person with a story and balls. |
I'd say that pretty well sums you up, pal.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | nothing, but a malcontent with money....Me, Can you spend it, LB....spend.... |
What, are you drinking in the afternoons, now munroe? Your post appears to be somewhat incoherent. Man, I can tell ya we've had our share of that in my union.
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erik Redburn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 380
Location: In Transit.
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Um, I think Munroe is trying to tell you he doesn't want to engage anymore. Since you for one may have a legitimate grievance you're perfectly free to post whatever you feel needs airing but theres no need to constantly bait him in particular, as if he's representative of the whole movement or responsible for Your particular problem. He's not. And you might do better avoiding broad generalizations about the labour movement in general.
_________________
Why do most believe that our after-lives will be anymore significant than our before-lives? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Bastard
Member
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Way, way out there
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ErikkTheDedd wrote: | Quote: | | Um, I think Munroe is trying to tell you he doesn't want to engage anymore. |
Um, really? So who's forcing him to do so? -certainly not me. I've merely been responding to the numerous 'engaging' posts he's addressed to me.
In fact, it began on September 6th when, in response to my suggestion that a Labour Ombudsman was needed, he offered the following:
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | LB thinks that a structural change, appointing a "Labour Ombudsman" is a worthy goal. I actually agree, provided the person has enough intestinal fortitude to tell people like LB and and gbuddy to screw off. |
Nice talk, eh? And, he throws a 'combination' my way by first appearing to "agree" with me before 'sticking the knife in' -it's the old 'one/two BOOM'.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | That said, maybe LB has an issue with how disabled workers are treated - of that I have no doubt. Trouble is the myopic consideration of a personal beef when there may be an opportunity to work with others to change an unjust system. |
There he reduces my entire propostition to nothing more than "the myopic consideration of a personal beef". Well, I resent that, and justifiably so.
munroe here is employing the old 'personal discredit' gambit -he doesn't like the message I bring, but instead of putting forth any valid criticism he chooses, instead, to 'shoot the messenger' down with his personal attack on me -a classic ploy.
I'm not "myopic" at all; if anything, I'm just a little more aware than most people of the bigger picture concerning the unfairness of our labour relations system -I suggest that problem is much greater than any one worker's personal plight.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | GBuddy has no such constituency. |
Another personal attack, this time on gbuddy.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | You want workers' organizations to work with you and for you guys - make noise, run for office, make a difference. |
Here munroe mistates what he mistakenly perceives to be gbuddy's and my respective agenda -before offering his unasked for 'fatherly' advice. Stiil, there's nothing from him that relates to the subject matter of this thread (which has little to do with "workers' organizations").
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | You aren't CLAC members so you have open rights that do not depend on your "morals". |
Then he pulls "CLAC" out of his ass -a red herring/bogey man if ever there was one -but for what purpose, if not to distract further from the thread's real subject matter.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | LB, everything you have said suggests a will to make a difference, but a blindness that continues. Get the hell off your high horse and work with the others who are disabled. Formulate a plan and work out a strategy. If you poison your position with a personal vendetta, then NEVER expect any support from anyone. |
And still another personal attack coupled with even more unrequested paternal advice.
munroe wrote: | Quote: | | Clear enough, LB, I hope so. |
What's abundantly clear is munroe wishes to berate me, personally but studiously avoids speaking to the actual issue raised by me; namely: a labour relations system that by design is unfair to the workers whose rights it purports to protect.
ErikkTheDedd wrote: | Quote: | | Since you for one may have a legitimate grievance you're perfectly free to post whatever you feel needs airing... |
Well, thank you for that, ErikkTD.
But apparently, you too have been swayed by munroe's singular focus on my personal "grievance" -legitimate or not, it is NOT really what this thread purports to address. Having said that, it should be noted that it was our friend unionist that first sought to misframe my suggestion for a Labour Ombudsman with my personal story.
ErikkTheDedd wrote: | Quote: | ..but theres no need to constantly bait (munroe) in particular, as if he's representative of the whole movement or responsible for Your particular problem.
He's not. |
I don't hold muroe personally "responsible" for what happened to me; although I do consider him -and others lke him -to be enablers of the type of injustice that I was exposed to.
Nonetheless, he certainly appears to hold himself out as some kind of "representative" of "the (so-called labour) movement". His 'holier than thou stance' (at least with respect to me) is particularly galling.
But I deny ever 'baiting' him. I reiterate: I've merely been responding to the numerous attacks levelled at me.
ErikkTheDedd wrote: | Quote: | | And you might do better avoiding broad generalizations about the labour movement in general. |
"Better"?? -in what sense of the word? Actually, I don't know that I've made any "broad generalizations about the labour movement in general", as you suggest. Would you care to elaborate or point to an example where you allege I've done so?
I began this thread quite pointedly in reference to the deplorable record of the Labour Relations Board with respect to workplace injustice for unionized workers. My opinions on that situation are valid and based on and reinforced by my personal experience with same.
Now, if someone wishes to step up to offer their defense of the LRB...well, that's one thing. But the continual denigration and impugning of me is completely unwarranted -I stand for justice for working people, plain and simple.
Obviously, there are some who would deny even that injustice for workers is a reality; but they do so only because the very existence of such injustice threatens and, moreover, reflects badly on themselves.
So how about you ErrikTheDedd -any thoughts on workplace injustice or the need for a Labour Ombudsman; or are you just going to take some personal shots at me, too?
Et tu, Brute?
_________________
The only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erik Redburn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 380
Location: In Transit.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Et tu, Brute?"
Ok, since Munroe showed the good sense to resist more of your baiting I'll just add that this kinda comment was pretty much what I meant. It's so over the top it's not even worth responding to.
I did notice you describing something that sounds alot like the spinal stinosis that put a close family member in a wheel chair, if so, I can only advise you get an operation with a skilled surgeon asap, and get a second opinion if your GP tries to assure you it's treatable by therapy and drugs alone.
_________________
Why do most believe that our after-lives will be anymore significant than our before-lives? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics