Lake Country company pre-emptively issue layoff notice

[Gone_Fishin]

Has ownership of the company changed?

Yes. It was privately owned, then sold to a US public company. That company went into Chapter 11, and then the hedge fund group that financed them took it over.

So, quite likely the culture shifted dramatically after decades of private ownership to a multi-national and then to a hedge fund group.

[alanjh595]

I suggest that; maybe when these two long-term employees started working there, conditions were good. Over time, they (circumstances) have slowly changed, but for them, they got promoted (along with increased pay) or graduated into positions that were conducive to their liking.
After 20+ years on the job, they are now "lead hands or supervisors" by now.

Just like working in a saw mill, you start out on the green chain and over time you become a forklift driver/machine operator/shift supervisor/grader to yard manager/etc.

An employee can't be forced to accept a promotion, especially in a union environment. I doubt they turned down any of the raises offered to them over time even though it was such a hell hole to work at.
Has ownership of the company changed?
If a place is indeed a toxic environment and a person makes the decision to stay on for even a day let alone stay for decades that is on them, no one else.

That leaves it up to the employee as to what they are willing to tolerate or leave. Everyone has a different threshold.

[cv23]

normal manufacturing has a crew and enough work for the crew . sometimes they get behind and hie a guy or two . they dont hire 30 guys and ditch them 6 months down the road and use that as a business model . that is called exploiting labour . its not like they hire on 6 month contracts

So a good/successful business model is to keep employees on even though the company has no work for those employees due to no fault of the company? Will all the companies that lay off employees if we have a recession be guilty of exploiting labour too?

In this case the employees called in Worksafe due to what they felt were safety concerns. Repairs/upgades to large machinery do not happen overnight or are cheap. Obviously now they may find themselves unemployed until their concerns are addressed to Worksafe's satisfaction.

[voice of reason]

normal manufacturing has a crew and enough work for the crew . sometimes they get behind and hie a guy or two . they dont hire 30 guys and ditch them 6 months down the road and use that as a business model . that is called exploiting labour . its not like they hire on 6 month contracts

So a good/successful business model is to keep employees on even though the company has no work for those employees due to no fault of the company? Will all the companies that lay off employees if we have a recession be guilty of exploiting labour too?

In this case the employees called in Worksafe due to what they felt were safety concerns. Repairs/upgades to large machinery do not happen overnight or are cheap. Obviously now they may find themselves unemployed until their concerns are addressed to Worksafe's satisfaction.

no they plan their work out properly so they have work all year long . not go like hell for 3 months then have nothing to do.

[cv23]

Has ownership of the company changed?

Yes. It was privately owned, then sold to a US public company. That company went into Chapter 11, and then the hedge fund group that financed them took it over.

So, quite likely the culture shifted dramatically after decades of private ownership to a multi-national and then to a hedge fund group.

So maybe it's no longer the great place to work at it once was? Good thing construction has been booming for the last few decades so employees had other options available.

The employees were well within their rights to call in Worksafe if they felt there was a dangerous situation and any issues found need to be resolved before production can resume. The employees made the call and are supposedly well represented by a union so were very likely aware of the possible ramifications of their call to Worksafe on both themselves and the company. No employees can, or should be, forced to work in an unsafe environment.

[trock]

Yes. It was privately owned, then sold to a US public company. That company went into Chapter 11, and then the hedge fund group that financed them took it over.

So, quite likely the culture shifted dramatically after decades of private ownership to a multi-national and then to a hedge fund group.

So maybe it's no longer the great place to work at it once was? Good thing construction has been booming for the last few decades so employees had other options available.

The employees were well within their rights to call in Worksafe if they felt there was a dangerous situation and any issues found need to be resolved before production can resume. The employees made the call and are supposedly well represented by a union so were very likely aware of the possible ramifications of their call to Worksafe on both themselves and the company. No employees can, or should be, forced to work in an unsafe environment.

There are too many mitigating variables for anyone that hasn't OR doesn't have experience working at that place to fully comprehend the overall logistics and behaviour that goes on inside. Look at it as a long term marriage, could've been great at the beginning, then you start to see changes ,or, NO changes ,even though you've voiced your concern as politely as possible. As for the comment about Being well represented by that UNION...here it is....BAHAHAHA NOT!!

It's easy for ALL of us to be sideline keyboard commentors with grandiose ideas and opinions isnt it?

[cv23]

As for the comment about Being well represented by that UNION...here it is....BAHAHAHA NOT!!

Any union is only as strong as it's members and only effective as it's members make it..

[T-roy]

. I doubt they turned down any of the raises offered to them over time even though it was such a hell hole to work at.
Has ownership of the company changed?
If a place is indeed a toxic environment and a person makes the decision to stay on for even a day let alone stay for decades that is on them, no one else.
[/quote]

RAISE OFFERD? lmao. its a union they don't offer you anything you Bargen to get anything. you fight and struggle to get every. cent.
you think for decades its been ran by the same people? what you think?
you think its had the same owners for that long? it must be ran by a guy that 107 years old then
its sure easy to sit back in your arm chair and judge when you never been in the game.
or your just a troll looking for a fish.

[T-roy]

As for the comment about Being well represented by that UNION...here it is....BAHAHAHA NOT!!

Any union is only as strong as it's members and only effective as it's members make it..

that's complete BS! we can show you the union is 5-6 years behind. they cant return phone calls, emails, texts.
they just take your money and run.
the company is trying to break the union and it sure looks like they are!

[cv23]

that's complete BS! we can show you the union is 5-6 years behind. they cant return phone calls, emails, texts.
they just take your money and run.
the company is trying to break the union and it sure looks like they are!

This is exactly why so many unions today, likely the one which represents the SRI workers, have become so weak and ineffective. Workers don't consider themselves as being the union, which they are, but rather independent of and literally in open opposition to the supposedly mutually beneficial organization which they joined and elected fellow members to represent them to the company in labour related matters. Rather than personally manning up and becoming involved in their own employment situation they believe that by paying dues that some Mommy figure will do all the work of taking care of them and their employment future.
If these sentiments are actually that of the "organized" employees at SRI then the company has very little work to do in finishing off what the employees themselves have already thoroughly broken.


To get back a bit more on topic.
Being involved in the steel fabrication and installation industry in the valley for decades, several years ago when SRI was being set up at the Lake Country/Kelowna location I was called in to quote my companies services on the heavy lifting equipment. This was not an off the shelf unit but rather a custom made piece of equipment. IMO it was slightly over designed at that time but that was some 30 years ago and requirements have changed a whole lot in that time possibly making the equipment now non compliant with todays standards. The workers were well within their rights to call Worksafe if they felt there was an issue with the piece of equipment's safety but the workers had to be aware that taking such a key piece of equipment out of service would shut down production for the time it would take to be upgraded or recertified to current standards, if even possible at all.

[T-roy]

*removed*

[dcipher]

So maybe it's no longer the great place to work at it once was? Good thing construction has been booming for the last few decades so employees had other options available.

The employees were well within their rights to call in Worksafe if they felt there was a dangerous situation and any issues found need to be resolved before production can resume. The employees made the call and are supposedly well represented by a union so were very likely aware of the possible ramifications of their call to Worksafe on both themselves and the company. No employees can, or should be, forced to work in an unsafe environment.

There are too many mitigating variables for anyone that hasn't OR doesn't have experience working at that place to fully comprehend the overall logistics and behaviour that goes on inside. Look at it as a long term marriage, could've been great at the beginning, then you start to see changes ,or, NO changes ,even though you've voiced your concern as politely as possible. As for the comment about Being well represented by that UNION...here it is....BAHAHAHA NOT!!

It's easy for ALL of us to be sideline keyboard commentors with grandiose ideas and opinions isnt it?

It really doesn't matter. Yes, there are myriad reasons why one might stay at the job - well ONE reason: MONEY, but myriad mitigating factors contributing to that. None of that changes the question of whether the company is acting ethically now or in the past. *removed*

[trock]

There are too many mitigating variables for anyone that hasn't OR doesn't have experience working at that place to fully comprehend the overall logistics and behaviour that goes on inside. Look at it as a long term marriage, could've been great at the beginning, then you start to see changes ,or, NO changes ,even though you've voiced your concern as politely as possible. As for the comment about Being well represented by that UNION...here it is....BAHAHAHA NOT!!

It's easy for ALL of us to be sideline keyboard commentors with grandiose ideas and opinions isnt it?

It really doesn't matter. Yes, there are myriad reasons why one might stay at the job - well ONE reason: MONEY, but myriad mitigating factors contributing to that. None of that changes the question of whether the company is acting ethically now or in the past. *removed*

The answer to your question has been answered a few times already actually, by long term employee's. It wasnt convoluted or an ambiguous answer /question. If you feel misinformed,or need more debate on the matter,go talk to that employer or Union. It's solely up to the reader(you) to conclude your own hypothesis on it. ;)