Raise the Hammer

I am so confused. I can't even figure out want your topic is, let alone discern an argument. You start by referencing the "Put Food in the Budget" campaign, without explaining what that is about. Then you suggest the protest was about labour laws, not food. Then some statistics about food bank usage. Then something about Lowblaws charities in support of children, which isn't about labour laws or food banks.But it IS "disturbing", for reasons left unstated. Then something about free cookies. Do free cookies, in their own small way, provide some food security to Loblaws customers? I'm not sure, because you never say what food security means.

the rising rates of food insecurity in this country is staggering, and given our vast wealth it should not be happening. excellent summary of this highly troubling trend, i sincerely hope that this becomes a discussion amongst party leaders in this federal election.

Loblaws cashiers are paid as little as $11 an hour.

Sigh... For Loblaws, the truth is easily found out.

Why? Because Loblaws is a union shop. Its wages are governed by the Collective Agreement (CA) between the union and the employer. A new CA or union contract just took effect on July 9, 2015. Less than a month ago.

Among other things, the Loblaws CA provides for a Defined Benefit pension plan for the workers. It is very, very rare for private sector workers to have a Defined Benefit pension plan.

So nobody can accuse me of repeating management spin, I'll provide a link to and a quotation from the website of The United Food and Commercial Workers Union report about the latest union contract between Loblaws and its 12,000 union workers in Ontario. I'll quote three of their bullet points about part time workers, since PT workers tend to be the lowest paid.

part-time in the wage progression and with over 300 hours worked will see immediate increases of $.05 up to $1.00 per hour; for those who do not get at least a $0.25 cent hourly increase by going on the new progression will receive an additional $100 in addition to the $350 lump sum;

all part-time at the end rate are guaranteed a minimum gap above the minimum wage if for example minimum wage goes to $15/hour.

all part-time workers including those with the least hours worked, will receive $350 as an immediate bonus.

Currently, the minimum wage in Ontario is $11 per hour. Which means that it is mathematically impossible, per their union contract, for any Loblaws worker to be "paid as little as $11.00 an hour."

Even if a worker has worked less than 300 hours and did not get the 25 cent increase then they would get the $450 bonus. $11 is the minimum wage in Ontario. As soon as the company starts paying bonuses to everyone, then everyone is automatically above that. And $450 over 300 hours gives an hourly rate of at least $12.50. And notice how everyone over 300 hours has their base pay automatically above minimum wage with at least a $350 bonus on top of that.

And as for "precarious part-time and contract positions," these are union jobs. Nobody can be fired except for cause and that is very, very difficult in a union shop unless the worker is doing Very Bad Things.

Finally, as for reporting the cashier being "disturbing," no union arbitrator in the entire world is going to uphold any discipline based upon the worker not asking a customer for a donation.

Loblaws is providing 12,000 union jobs for the people of Ontario. Not too many companies can make that claim.

Article is right. You people are being dicks. Just because Loblaws is employs many unionized employees doesn't mean it shouldn't or can't be criticized. They can always do better.

The article made a specific claim about Loblaws employee compensation that can be mathematically demonstrated to be false. If you believe that I have made an error in my arithmetic, please be so kind as to point it out.

And I found yet another false claim in the article.

This means that even if they manage to work 35 hours per week for a full year - most employees are part-time - their annual income would be $20,020 before taxes.

Anyone who works 35 hours per week for a full year will be over the 300 hour threshold. It is therefore mathematically impossible for their income to be as low as $20,020.

There are legitimate concerns, which I fully share, about increasing inequality of income and wealth in Canada and around the world. Retail industries are major offenders in terms of exploited and abused workers. But Loblaws is one of the better employers because it is a union shop. Making statements about Loblaws compensation that can be easily proven false is not a good way to go about looking at the very serious issue of increasing inequality of income and wealth in Canada.

Among other things, this inequality of income and wealth, combined with increasing family-hostile and child-hostile corporate and government policies, is a major contributor to Canada's declining birthrate.

I know many young couples where this is absolutely playing itself out in their lives. Call me a fiscal liberal (because I am one!) but I do not believe that a birthrate that has declined to the point of national suicide is good public policy.

Comment edited by KevinLove on 2015-08-06 18:57:20

I'm happy to donate my sperm if anyone will take it and run with it...

Great point Kevin!

In Hamilton, I suggest that you apply to Can-Am Cryoservices. Their address is 102-1057 Main Street West, Hamilton.

Better than wasting them on the palm of your hands, wanker ;)

Important topics. So instead some set out to disprove and others set out to derail with idiotic irrelevant comments.

What I think people should look at is guaranteed livable income.
The research is done and it was even implemented for a bit in Manitoba as a test before a new party was elected and killed it.

GLI would provide a guaranteed minimum income to all Canadians that is at a livable amount. You won't get rich but you will be able to live. This would give people enough for food and shelter and other necessities without the stigma or heavy oversight that current systems have that do not provide enough to survive on let alone live.

People working who made less than the minimum would get the balance given to make it up.

It was shown that this did not shrink the number of workers except among mothers who stayed home with the kids and students who actually did better in school.

It give people dignity, choice and much of the money would return back into the community in which they live as they would have funds to shop and participate in the local economy.

Currently the Greens are the only ones with a version of this on their platform though the NDP and Liberals have made mention of it.

We could reduce so much in emergency care if only we gave people enough to stand on their own. It can give others whose income is precarious, more stability.

It would also help certain field such as art where artists can actually live and produce their work instead of scrambling to make do until their art is sold. Seasonal workers would have an income all year long without weeks of waiting and paperwork etc. to get unemployment.

It works better than a living wage for small businesses because their workers would be looked after without breaking their small margins to pay a livable wage. That's not to say employers should not pay a living wage but that this helps more than one sector and could be the solution for small businesses too.

It can be done all it needs is political will.