Ikea Richmond Union

[36Drew]

I find your statement very confusing.

What's confusing? The fact that I support worker's rights, or the fact that I support worker's rights?

[36Drew]

http://ikeahurtsfamilies.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/ikea-report-new1.pdf

on page 9 is because they say they need to be paide 19.62 an hour to have a actual living wage. Dont forget the more they make the more union dues the actual union gets. so in reality they need to make north of $20.00. I know that Canadian superstore is union..they dont make that much either...How fair is it if that union gets 20+ dollars an hour and another union doesnt...

If they didnt like the wage they are getting whats stopping them from going to another company that will offer that amount?

Try the news section of google. Let me help: http://goo.gl/jX5cRf

First item: http://globalnews.ca/news/1319171/strike-by-ikeas-richmond-workers-nears-one-year-mark/ Let's have a read:

Three hundred members of Teamsters Local 213 walked off the job in mid-May 2013.

It’s believed 35 of them broke ranks and returned to work early on in the process.

The union is demanding they be moved from the workplace, in order to reach an agreement, but Ikea says it has no plans to do so.

Another source: http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/Opinion+IKEA+must+punish+loyal+workers/9655777/story.html Let's have a read:

Rather than focusing on putting employees back to work, union leaders have decreed there will be no deal unless those employees who crossed the picket line to support their families (as they are legally entitled to do under B.C. law) are terminated from the store.

Nowhere else in the modern, civilized world could this happen, and it may even be a first for Canada. Unions are supposed to be the protectors of jobs and, to my knowledge, no union has previously requested the mass termination of employees for working during a strike or lockout.

That same article even mentions this:

But subjecting these employees to union discipline and invective isn’t enough for the Teamsters. They want IKEA to punish them too.

Why? Because the union doesn’t want unionized picketers to return to work alongside employees who have been expelled from union membership.

So the current dispute has little to do with finances, benefits or IKEA, and everything to do with internal union politics. Indeed, the real Goliath in this battle is the union, and it is bent on punishing those who worked during the strike and intimidating unionized picketers into staying put.

The dispute, as it currently sits, has absolutely nothing to do with money. An organization (Teamsters Local 213) refuses to accept any agreement that doesn't trample on the rights of the common working man to work at Ikea. I have to ask, what benefits does that union actually offer its members? They're not working, save for the 35 souls who decided to work and feed their families.

[goatboy]

What's confusing? The fact that I support worker's rights, or the fact that I support worker's rights?

The workers have the right to not work for a company that does not treat them the way they want to be, including what they get paid. It's a wonderful country we work in where you have the right to free will, isn't it?

[36Drew]

The workers have the right to not work for a company that does not treat them the way they want to be, including what they get paid. It's a wonderful country we work in where you have the right to free will, isn't it?

You seem to have failed to grasp what I was saying. You should go back and re-read.

[Symbonite]

But the right to work should be decided by the individual and the Union should have no right to stop people from working. at the end the people working are the one that will be ahead.

[goatboy]

You seem to have failed to grasp what I was saying. You should go back and re-read.

I did mis-read the intent of your posts, I appologize. If you support the 30 workers that would lose their jobs if the Union got it's way, then I'm on your side.

[36Drew]

I did mis-read the intent of your posts, I appologize. If you support the 30 workers that would lose their jobs if the Union got it's way, then I'm on your side.

I support the rights of the union workers to associate, form a group and choose not to work (strike) in order to achieve work terms that both employer and employees agree upon. It's a free country, and nobody can force them to work. There's nothing wrong with bargaining collectively for work terms. After all, employment is contractual.

I also support the rights of the 35 workers who decided that the terms of their employment were satisfactory to them and chose to continue working in order to support themselves and their families. It's a free country, and nobody has the right to restrict or limit an individual's ability to make an income. If the employee and employer are content with the terms of their employment contract, it's nobody's business but theirs.

I support the Teamsters' right to allow or disallow membership in their association based on the criteria for membership as supported by the majority of their members. You and I don't have the right to tell any other organization who can and cannot be members. We may not agree with them, but that's the will of their membership. If an association's rules are that important to you, then you should become a voting member so that you can then have a say in how it's governed.

So where we absolutely do agree - I do not at all find how the union can even fathom hanging on to their rights at the expense of running roughshod over the rights of others. Perhaps we need a bigger push for right-to-work legislation. Then we'll at least be on-par with the rest of the civilized world as far as unionized labour goes.

[my5cents]

When unions negotiate and have an agreement with an employer, normally, isn't membership in that union a prerequisite to employment ? I've been in a couple and I believe that was the situation.

So, the employees vote to strike, or the employer locks out the employees, because of the disagreement with the union. If some employees go against their union and work, they earn money while the employer and the union are at odds. BUT, once the relationship is patched up, the union is within it's rights to disallow the membership of those employees that didn't abide by the rules.

Since they are not in the union, they can't work for that employer. Too bad, so sad.

[36Drew]

When unions negotiate and have an agreement with an employer, normally, isn't membership in that union a prerequisite to employment ? I've been in a couple and I believe that was the situation.

So, the employees vote to strike, or the employer locks out the employees, because of the disagreement with the union. If some employees go against their union and work, they earn money while the employer and the union are at odds. BUT, once the relationship is patched up, the union is within it's rights to disallow the membership of those employees that didn't abide by the rules.

Since they are not in the union, they can't work for that employer. Too bad, so sad.

...and that's why we need right-to-work to come along. Yes, the union is within its rights to disallow the membership of those employees. However, the union isn't really within their rights to demand an exclusive workplace.

[maryjane48]

and that's why we need right-to-work to come along. Yes, the union is within its rights to disallow the membership of those employees. However, the union isn't really within their rights to demand an exclusive workplace.

that would lead to slavery

[Smurf]

I don't believe it is the union demanding an exclusive workplace. I think if you check it is law not union rules or expectations. I believe it was originally set up that way so that people could not come into a workplace and ride on the coattails of the union without paying dues etc..

If you could go to a job and get all the benefits of the union why would you join and pay dues. If you didn't get the union benefits and the employer could pay you less, give less benefits, force you to work overtime whenever he wanted, why would he hire anyone that wanted to be a union member. Think about it, if there are going to be unions it actually makes sense that they are exclusive.

Remember unions are there to help employees that think they need help with an employer. An employer only gets a union if they deserves it. There are tons of good employers out there, Kal Tire always comes to my mind, that have no need for a union. Had all employers been good, given good working conditions etc. unions would have never existed. Actually employers are getting what they deserve.

[my5cents]

...............Remember unions are there to help employees that think they need help with an employer. An employer only gets a union if they deserves it.

Usually but it takes employees to organize. The TFW scandals of the present with all the fast food outlets and other employers, comes to mind. A clear case of employers not taking care of their employees.

There are tons of good employers out there, Kal Tire always comes to my mind, that have no need for a union. Had all employers been good, given good working conditions etc. unions would have never existed. Actually employers are getting what they deserve.

Yes, and I understand Gorman's is another. But sadly they seem to be the exception. Our own government is one of the worst employers, be in contracting out or thinking they can make laws to solve their own employment contract issues.

[Liquidnails]

that would lead to slavery

Funny you should mention that. Ikea has admitted to using slave labour during the '80s.

A few other interesting tidbits:

Ikea is alleged to have paid for illegal access to secret police files to gain information about employees, clients and even people who came near its property. 4 execs in France got fired for that.

At production plants in Europe, workers make $19/hr and get 5 weeks of holidays a year. At their US plant, workers make $8 and hour and get 12 days off, 8 on company determined dates.

Ikea is clear-cutting one of Europe's last great old growth forests. Cutting of 600 year old trees and engaging in other bad practices that has lead to the suspension of their Forest Stewardship Council certification.

I guess they're no different than any other major corporation or retailer. Profits first, and to hell with everything else.

[Symbonite]

Unions dont care...its still about money....look into the actual link I said in a previous post....and read it...its about money and a living wage. If you dont like the wage your getting you can also go out and find a job willing to pay you more money.

I guess they rather see the place close before they go back to work.

[Dizzy1]

The workers have the right to not work for a company that does not treat them the way they want to be, including what they get paid. It's a wonderful country we work in where you have the right to free will, isn't it?

And a worker should have the right to gain employment without having to join some "brotherhood".