Castanet

Veovis wrote:NO they can't because if a bonus was given to one employee and not another it can be grieved since it was an "unfair salary" and they are "all equal"

I've met employers who seriously wish they could give out a Christmas bonus still, but can't. The union would instantly demand dues on it, and that all other employees receive an "equal amount" as you know "everyone is equal", except they aren't and that isn't in the budget so no one can get one.

Union motto though, protect the bad employee, don't reward the good, and blame the employer for it all.

Don't read much here anymore, and more rarelely respond, but this one is complete B.S.
As a union employee I've receiced performance bonuses not awarded to co-workers.
I've also had conversation with the current B.A. who informed me (during an unrelated meeting) that the wage & benefit package negotiated is a minimum compensation that must be paid to all union members represented by the agreement.
Employers are free to pay extra compensation should they choose.
Further, they frequently do.

^^^ Not my experience. We tried to do that when I was in the forestry sector. The union poo-pooed it, saying that if a bonus were given it had to be given to everyone.

There is nothing in the CA that prevents performance-based bonuses as far as I'm aware. In order for that to work, the HA's masses of managers would actually have to evaluate every employee on a regular basis. Riigghhtt....

Don't read much here anymore, and more rarelely respond, but this one is complete B.S.
As a union employee I've receiced performance bonuses not awarded to co-workers.
I've also had conversation with the current B.A. who informed me (during an unrelated meeting) that the wage & benefit package negotiated is a minimum compensation that must be paid to all union members represented by the agreement.
Employers are free to pay extra compensation should they choose.
Further, they frequently do.

Yep. Bonuses are a management decision.

Boda wrote: the wage & benefit package negotiated is a minimum compensation that must be paid to all union members represented by the agreement.
Employers are free to pay extra compensation should they choose.
Further, they frequently do.

This is true, however that higher wage must be paid to all equivalent employees, not simply "I like Bill so I'll pay him $2.00/hour more" IF Bill was a Thingamajig tech, then all thingamij techs are entitled to that $2.00/hour increase.

However, yes employers are welcome to pay any amount over the minimum to all employees of a classification.

Rwede wrote:
It was directed at you, but FF butted into the middle.

Well, thanks for clearing that up. Let me clear something up as well - I don't hate management. What I hate is incompetent, wasteful and impersonal management. Huge difference.

Veovis wrote:This is true, however that higher wage must be paid to all equivalent employees, not simply "I like Bill so I'll pay him $2.00/hour more" IF Bill was a Thingamajig tech, then all thingamij techs are entitled to that $2.00/hour increase.

However, yes employers are welcome to pay any amount over the minimum to all employees of a classification.

That's how I understand it, so the only way the employer can compensate someone in a specific category, over and above what others in that category earn, is by calling it a bonus.

I think everyone can concede, based on discussions in these forums, how well the whole concept of bonuses goes over.

I for that matter disagree with them too, as I prefer to see a worker who goes the extra mile, acknowledged by means of a better wage on every check, as opposed to a bonus, that often times comes off as workers getting a windfall, for simply doing what they were hired to do in the first place.

I'd much rather see a justified wage increase for such people, given after a performance review indicates it to be warranted.

grammafreddy wrote:

Jeckle wrote:Just a little perspective from one of "them". (me)
I make less per hour now than I did when I started almost 11 years ago.
We lost 15% of our wages back in 2003, and last contract we lost holiday days. Why do we have to keep going backwards?
Now they want us to pay for 25% of our benefits?
That is a huge loss, I doubt anyone would be happy to sign on to that.

I don't suppose it would have occurred to you that perhaps your contract was just a little too sweet before? Too many sick days and holiday days, too many benefits you got for nothing, too many perks, too much money?

Do you complain this loudly and passionatley about how the MLA's are paid, as well as their benefits and golden parachute pension?

Alvis wrote:Do you complain this loudly and passionatley about how the MLA's are paid, as well as their benefits and golden parachute pension?

So your argument is you deserve more unjustified perks, because someone else gets them?

EPIC FAIL!