|
|
|
|
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/8/2009 10:06:41 PM | | if they accept to work 40 hours instead of 37 like they are now... 30 of them are losing their job. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/8/2009 10:32:04 PM | Ok. Northern I have to dissagree. I make less then $20 and hour and I do ok. I have a two bedroom apartment, food, and still some money left over to go out every now and then. Oh and did I mention that I pay child support? It can be done.
I was a supervisor in a union shop and I can say from my experiance that unions are a joke. If I had my way I would have trimed about half of the people there. We had so many people that could not do the jobs they were in. But with the 6 step process to get rid of someone it could take almost a year. And then the senroitiy crap that I had to deal with. It took me over 6 months and 5 people to find someone that could do the job. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/8/2009 11:57:10 PM | | NL ..I wasnt refering to the cost of housing..there are many who have all the toys, the bikes , sleds,quads,boats,trailers/motorhomes, going out to eat at restaurants daily..thats the living high, if one can do it and have all the toys..earn it with quality work..not by staying in a union because they cannt get rid of someone, and I do agree some of the housing in the cities is terrible and rent to high..but there are some that get by on less than $21 hr per wage earner...remember there are some out there that have two incomes per household..not like us on here with only one. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 6:20:17 AM | To the guy who told me to get my head out of my ass... that it was impossible to live off less than $21 per hour (and then either pulled or had his comment pulled)... here's something for you to absorb.
According to Statistics Canada, Alberta's MEDIAN HOURLY WAGE in 2007 was $19.67
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-222-x/2008001/sectionj/j-wages-salaires-eng.htm
Alberta also boasts the highest median wage in Canada. In other words, well over half the country lives on less than $21 per hour.
So ummm... maybe I am not the one with my head in a dark space. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 7:06:25 AM | Anti-Elvis .... I guess we all have our lifestyles and spending habits, but at $21 an hour for 40 hours a week ... $3360 a month ... it sounds like enough to "live" off pretty good to me! Plus, I'm guessing that includes health and dental benefits?
But, it is about lifestyles I guess... what I would call living comfortably some people may think of as "basic survival". What I would consider as living "grand", some may consider as only "doing okay". It's all a matter of perspective I guess.
Ah ... If only we could all do one year in "Alberta Health Care" .. What did that woman make? over a million, and a 275,000 severance pay for nine months work? | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 7:10:12 AM |
In other words, well over half the country lives on less than $21 per hour.
Ya, but lots and lots of the lower end jobs in the stat you've quoted are not held by single income households. I think the average combined wage for two income earners is in the 60k's, which makes life way easier. A few posts here suggest that surviving on 20$/hr can be done, but it's pay check to pay check or at best, minimal savings and minimal security. It's not surviving unless you're saving some money somewhere somehow.
I'm just amazed at how inflation works. Even ten years ago I could take a five dollar bill down to the corner store and buy a loaf of bread, a jug of milk and still have enough left over for a penny whistle and moon pie. (ten years ago 20$/hr was pretty good) Now it's like even 30$/hr is kind of low. I think a lot of it depends on benefits. And your tax burden. And kids.
Look at it this way, getting a guy who's not drunk from cash corner will cost you $15/hr cash for a minimum of 6 hours, plus lunch (if you want him to keep working hard), plus a ride back downtown. That's the equivalent (depending on taxes) of about $25/hr. The drunk guys are a little cheaper $12/hr), but you get what you pay for. I think that's the truest gage of what you really need to "survive" in Calgary.
Oh yeah, and unions suck. Don't like your job, go get a better one. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 7:31:15 AM |
Anti-Elvis .... I guess we all have our lifestyles and spending habits, but at $21 an hour for 40 hours a week ... $3360 a month ... it sounds like enough to "live" off pretty good to me! Plus, I'm guessing that includes health and dental benefits?
You must live in the country where they don't deduct tax, CPP, EI, etc? That's about 43K a year or about 600 bucks a week take home. Assuming you rent an apartment, buy a bus pass, eat properly 3 meals a day, have some form of phone & internet (generally a must now), have some form of life insurance AND invest 20% of your income to retire (so your ass isn't eating Puppy Chow at 65) it's not hard to use up all that money. Add in any car and you're toasted. Now, the "standard" way of life in Canada is to own a home, have a car and usually a family....
RatherBGolfing ^^^^ The reason 20 bucks an hour is the median income in Canada is because the rest of Canada is cheaper than Alberta. I lived in Waterloo, ON. I made 46K a year. My GF made 22. This salary bought us a new car, a 2 bedroom townhouse with fireplace, hardwood, etc, an active "go out life", ate well, ate out, fashion, vacations, paying for my kid and $500 into an RRSP every month. Could you do that in Calgary or Edmonton? Not likely dude. A decent townhouse anywhere in Urban Calgary runs you 350K or higher. A 70K income doesn't even qualify you for the mortgage. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 7:32:50 AM | I have never worked for Safeway and as a result do not know first hand what it is like to work for them. I do know a lady who has been working for them for about 7 or 8 years. She is not happy with them at all. She keeps working for them due to convenience of location and the good rapport she has with many customers.
From what she tells me management rules with an iron fist and is trying to replace senior staff in order to hire lower cost junior staff as replacements. Two part time jobs replacing one full time job means not having to pay benefits and the stores are doing just that in many cases.
Something to keep in mind, happy employees do not unionize for the hell of it. Where there is a union you will find some form of worker mistreatment in the employers history. Employment standards in Alberta are a joke when it comes to enforcement and those who do complain about even illegal working conditions will soon find a separation slip in their pay envelope regardless of how legitimate the workers complaint is.
I am not a fan of unions but they do have a place even today. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 9:18:53 AM | Ya, but lots and lots of the lower end jobs in the stat you've quoted are not held by single income households.
I would hope not. And what does single income households have to do with this discussion? Less than 15% of the households in the entire nation are supported by single-income. Are you implying that an unskilled labourer at Safeway should make enough so that his or her better half can stay at home? I guess what that says is that they are worth more than the teachers who conduct the Grade 12 classes the majority of those labourers never got to.
I think the average combined wage for two income earners is in the 60k's, which makes life way easier.
I really don't know where you are going with this, but a $20/hr job works out to over $41,000 per year. So according to Statitstics Canada, the median salary in Alberta would equate to over $80,000 per year for a double income family.
You are saying that living on $20 per hour is paycheck to paycheck at best, but that two people can live on $60,000 quite easily. It can't be both. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 10:36:02 AM |
I would hope not. And what does single income households have to do with this discussion? Less than 15% of the households in the entire nation are supported by single-income.
I have to question that 15% figure. Given that there are nearly as many single moms as married mom's, how is that figured defined? If you live with a room-mate are you a single income household?
You are saying that living on $20 per hour is paycheck to paycheck at best, but that two people can live on $60,000 quite easily. It can't be both.
Sure it can. Eg. Take a single male, 1 bedroom apartment, 1 car, cable, internet & food make up his expenses. If his GF moves in with him, they can split the cost of the apartment, the car, the cable & the internet. Co habitation cuts costs man..that's why folks get room-mates. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 11:37:22 AM | RatherBGolfing ^^^^ The reason 20 bucks an hour is the median income in Canada is because the rest of Canada is cheaper than Alberta
AE... The $19.67 was ALBERTA'S median wage. It had nothing to do with the rest of Canada
When you compare Waterloo to Calgary, you are comparing the housing marking in a city of less than 100,000 people to the housing market in a city of over 1 million people.
As for Alberta being more expensive then the rest of Canada, it wasn't like that before the rest of Canada decided they wanted to live in Alberta.
"If you live with a room-mate are you a single income household? "
Not if your roommate is bringing in an income.
As long as there is more than one income going towards the costs of living in that dwelling, it becomes a multi-incomer dwelling.
| |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 12:10:11 PM | ^^^^. Waterloo is part of a 3 city setup called the Region of Waterloo which has about 450,000 people. It's all one big city, even the transit system is shared by all 3 communities. Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal..all cities as large or larger than Calgary and all are cheaper than Calgary. Even Toronto real estate is cheaper than in Calgary and when you factor in eating, it gets even more affordable. So even comparing larger cities, you still find Calgary is expensive man.
As for all the rest of Canada coming here....well man, the boom came first, then the people followed. I can remember being in Calgary in junior/senior high school and the same thing happened. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect you want to blame those that moved here for the woes and high prices? You can't..because those same people are what contributed to all the wealth in Alberta. Hell, if it wasn't for Newf's, Fort Mac would have a population of 25 people and a few natives.
I googled Canada's median income and a link I got too me to a National Post article. It said that in 2006, Canada's median income was about 41K and change. Not much different than Alberta's dude..but a Safeway paycheque would go a lot farther in Winnipeg than in Edmonton.
PS. Remember those people that used to wish the "boom would end". Well you all got your wish. My mom used to always say "careful what you wish for, you just might get it". I'll take 2 jobs, high rent and boom times over unemployment any day of the week. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 12:51:14 PM | AE, I am not the one complaining about Alberta having high prices. I am quite happy living in Alberta. In fact, I lived on Vancouver Island for 5 years and I would never go back there. You seem to be the one complaining about how much more expensive it is to live here than anywhere else in Canada.
Let me ask you something. When did you live in Waterloo? Because I am guessing that you did not move halfway across the country to come back to a lower paying job. So I am assuming you are making more now than you were back then. And yes, things cost more than they did back then. They do here. They do in Waterloo. That's the way of the world, dude.
Am I complaining about the people coming here? Hardly. My house in Belmead tripled in value from 1997 to 2007. (I also don't recall anyone wishing the boom would end.)
All I am saying, which is all I have said all along, is that the Safeway strikers will not get my support, after turning down a contract that would have given them a 14% increase over the next three years.
I have not received a 14% raise over the past three years with my job. Have you? It was a sweet deal, one that the union recommended the workers to accept and that the workers still turned down. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 1:23:41 PM | K, final comments or we'll both be banned..
Let me ask you something. When did you live in Waterloo? Because I am guessing that you did not move halfway across the country to come back to a lower paying job. So I am assuming you are making more now than you were back then. And yes, things cost more than they did back then. They do here. They do in Waterloo. That's the way of the world, dude.
I came back to Calgary for a few reasons, number 1 was that I was dumping my ex. She was bipolar and I wanted her near her family when I dumped her..because I seriously figured she'd kill herself. I didn't come for a job..just I found one and I now I'm self employed so I can't really leave...and I don't want too. Ontario is home to too many 'cranky pants people'
All I am saying, which is all I have said all along, is that the Safeway strikers will not get my support, after turning down a contract that would have given them a 14% increase over the next three years.
And one that topic, I agree with you. I think the workers are being short sighted & lack the business acumen to understand the impact their decision could have on their future.
What I commented on was that I don't think it's that easy to "live" on $21 bucks an hour. I said there is a difference between surviving and living. I defined "living" using a standard Canadian example..having some form of shelter, some kind of car, cable, telephone, internet & eating..plus a bit of entertainment. You can do it, but it's not going to be easy and for most people life would be a struggle. Toss in a kid or two in the mix and it's really tough.
That said..the Safeway dudes made their own bed and now they need to live in it. And I think they're incredibly stupid to turn down an offer like this. And seeing they have, let them, they'll discover that maybe the grass isn't that brown on their side of the fence. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 2:36:27 PM |
The workers' contract expired last December. The current dispute is over hours, benefits and wages. One of the issues is Safeway's desire to have full-time employees work 40 hours a week, up from the 37 hours they work now, said Douglas O'Halloran, president of the UFCW Local 401. Workers also want a wage increase.
"When the economic boom was on, these workers were working under a contract that called for 35 cents an hour increase ... and they feel that they should get paid a fair wage increase because Canada Safeway didn't offer them any money when it was in a boom," O'Halloran said.
The company placed ads in both Edmonton newspapers Friday looking for replacement workers. During labour disputes in Alberta, it is not illegal to bring in replacement workers.
"I don't blame Safeway so much as I blame the Alberta government," O'Halloran said. "We have terrible labour laws in this province and Safeway is doing what they can within the laws and to try and operate their warehouses. What we need is a change in labour laws that give workers some protection."
If the workers are locked out Monday, O'Halloran doesn't expect a quick resolution to the dispute.
"I think we have to plan for a long strike and the workers shouldn't be under any illusion that this is going to be over quickly."
So the workers were actually locked out and had no choice but to go on strike.I don't know if any of you understand how a Alberta lock out works.If you haven't gone on a strike.After 24 hours they can call the employees back under the contract they offered.
Sounds like no one knows the full details what was offered.And from that article it doesn't say much either. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 3:07:20 PM |
To the guy who told me to get my head out of my ass... that it was impossible to live off less than $21 per hour (and then either pulled or had his comment pulled)... here's something for you to absorb.
I didnt say it was impossible, i said I couldnt so relax. 21/hr works out to 40320. say you take home 60% of that your left with 25000 a YEAR in your pocket. 1000/month minimum a month rent, plus utilites, car payment, insurance, maybe a meal once and a while it would be pretty hard to get by. now throw in a couple of kids into the picture and things get ever tighter.
Like it was said above, the median wage in Canada means nothing in this conversation, as the cost of living varies. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 3:15:25 PM |
I didnt say it was impossible, i said I couldnt so relax.
Then I guess you aren't the guy I was talking to .... so relax
Like it was said above, the median wage in Canada means nothing in this conversation, as the cost of living varies.
Like I said above, the median wage I quoted was ALBERTA'S median wage, as in... the median wage IN ALBERTA.
What it means is that exactly half of the working population IN ALBERTA made $19.67 per hour, or less, in 2007.
It has nothing to do with the rest of Canada, because, like you say, the rest of Canada means nothing in this conversation. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 4:18:57 PM |
I didnt say it was impossible, i said I couldnt so relax. 21/hr works out to 40320. say you take home 60% of that your left with 25000 a YEAR in your pocket. 1000/month minimum a month rent, plus utilites, car payment, insurance, maybe a meal once and a while it would be pretty hard to get by. now throw in a couple of kids into the picture and things get ever tighter.
Perhaps my math is wrong, but $21 / hour at 40 hours a week = $840. $840 / week for 52 weeks per year = $43680. I make more than this and I take home 70% of my paycheque - I cannot see why someone who made less would be in a higher tax bracket than me. 70% of $43680 = roughly $30576 take home pay per year.
$30576 / 12 months = $2548 take home pay every month.
$1000 per month MINIMUM for rent? If that's the case you should really look at getting roommates, living in a slightly less ritzy area, or both. Of all the people I know in Edmonton who are living in apartments, only 1 is paying more than 1k a month... and she is living in a trendy area, in a new building with a pool, sauna, workout room, fireplaces, in suite laundry, etc. I do know people who live in apartments that go for $1100 or $1200... but those are 2 or 3 bedroom apartments, so that rent is split in half or thirds.
Having a car is also not a necessity for life, or a good standard of living. There are a LOT of people in this city and all others who take the bus and train - I did it myself until I was in my mid-20s. I certainly wasn't suffering or living a life of poverty - but I knew I couldn't afford car and insurance payments at my current income while paying back student loans... so I DIDN'T BUY A CAR. Sounds like rocket science I know, but a $65 (at the time) bus pass got me around the city effectively enough, until I could afford a vehicle. It's a pain in the arse but it certainly didn't kill me!
I agree that "throwing a couple of kids into the picture" changes things dramatically, but that is where my sympathy ends. Just as I chose not to buy a car until I could afford it, perhaps people should CHOOSE not to have kids until they can comfortably afford them. It really is a choice - if you can't afford kids, take the pill, wear condoms, etc - and don't have kids. Don't choose to have a child (or 2, or 3) and then complain that your wages aren't high enough to support them. And yes I know that accidents happen - but I would be willing to bet the number of TRULY "accidental" children (those in which birth control is used properly and safe sex is practiced but a pregnancy still occurs) is quite low. Before I get flamed too badly I'll say the exception to this would be women who are in long term relationships with men, a mutual decision to have children is reached, and then the guy takes off after the kid is born and doesn't pay child support - this sucks. (and by long term relationships I'm thinking in terms of years, not months. If you choose to deliberately have a child with a man or woman you've known less than a year, my sympathy level drops considerably.) | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 4:29:52 PM |
Just as I chose not to buy a car until I could afford it, perhaps people should CHOOSE not to have kids until they can comfortably afford them.
Oh good lord... are you REALLY serious with this statement?
Ok, your disclaimer was good, I'll give you that, but NOTHING is forever in this world. We get into relationships and have kids with good intentions and any number of things can happen.
Not many people I know are bound and determined to be single parents.
(and by long term relationships I'm thinking in terms of years, not months. If you choose to deliberately have a child with a man or woman you've known less than a year, my sympathy level drops considerably.)
I don't see anyone asking you for your sympathy. I really get a kick out of people like you who have the 'moral high ground' and can't see anything past their own nose. I know many people who have had kids with someone they've known for less then a year and have continued on to have successful long term relationships. As with anything in life, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
The end result is that if a person has children, regardless of the circumstances, they need to be cared for.... and one cannot do that on $15/hr. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 5:06:53 PM |
And what does single income households have to do with this discussion?
Well, RBG, I dunno. You seemed to imply that people can live happily on 20 bucks an hour because most of the people in Aberta make 20 bucks an hour. So then I meant to point out that just because x% of people make 20 bucks an hour doesn't even come close to meaning that the same number of people live happily on that income alone. I don't at all mean to suggest that Safeway workers deserve a comfy salary just because a comfy lifestyle dictates such. Not at all. But your equation of median salary to comfortable lifestyle is not the whole picture. I'm with you, screw unions. Fire the whole damn bunch of 'em and hire people who will work.
So according to Statitstics Canada, the median salary in Alberta would equate to over $80,000 per year for a double income family.
I'm just going to hope you know better than that.
but that two people can live on $60,000 quite easily. It can't be both
Same with that.
When the economic boom was on, these workers were working under a contract that called for 35 cents an hour increase ... and they feel that they should get paid a fair wage increase because Canada Safeway didn't offer them any money when it was in a boom
That is exactly the problem with most unions. If you want a slice of the proft, then invest some money.
As with anything in life, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
I think I'd be looking for a little better odds than that when having kids. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 6:11:10 PM |
You seemed to imply that people can live happily on 20 bucks an hour because most of the people in Aberta make 20 bucks an hour.
I know single mothers who make no more than $20 an hour, who have a car and condos. Now, granted, the condos were bought prior to the year 2000, but you know what the bottom line is here? The bottom line is that the majority... the VAST majority ... of people have absolutely no interest in budgeting, or saving for the future. The majority of people in our society, sorry to say, would not be able to sustain a six-month lay-off, with no salary coming in, REGARÐLESS of how much they make. Sadly, the majority of people in western society spend beyond their means.
Peopla CAN live happily on $20/hour. Many people do. Happy is a relative term.
Can someone who works right now for $12/hour at a Macs or 7/11 live happily on $20/hour? Absolutely. They've learned to live with less, but you know what? They're still happy.
Can YOU live happily on $20 per hour? I'm guessing not, or you wouldn't be implying that it is not possible. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 6:35:38 PM |
So, these guys are striking because a 14% raise over the next three years is not enough. Oh, that and because they don't want their work week raised from 37 to 40 hours a week.
No these guys aren't striking they were actually locked out.Like I stated before they had to take a strike vote in order not to be stuck with a contract they didn't like.Do you really think the issue would be a meager 3 hours?I think their is more at stake then that.They might of asked 14% like you stated.For all we know they were asked to take a wage roll back.They were locked out because they wouldn't take what Safeway offerered them.It was probably a take it or leave it attitude.After all Safeway is in the drivers seat with their being a recession. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 6:39:16 PM | Ok so having read the posts I'm changing my answer. Now that I'm working again, I'm not mentioning wages... I pay $1200 rent for a two bedroom condo, live on my own, no kids. I work part time as a musician and it brings in a few extra hundred dollars a month. I get by. I have money left over enough to enjoy a nice lifestyle and start saving towards a house/mortgage. But then I choose NOT to drive. I don't have the expense of a vehicle to worry about - who needs one when you live ten blocks from work?
In most organizations you do not get a paid lunch hour. Where I work is a non profit org, we get 30 minutes unpaid lunch hour. If we want extra time, we can come in early or leave later. It works for me since we get treated fairly well for a small time org. I've worked with unions before and got to say - didn't like them. Especially government union employees. They seem to take full advantage (and not in the good way) knowing the union is there to back them up. Being on a union makes it hard to get rid of the workers who you don't want to keep around. | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 7:05:46 PM |
know single mothers who make no more than $20 an hour, who have a car and condos.
You would have to have some form of help to own a condo and a car on 40k a year. You're telling me there's no child support coming in, no lump sum divorce payment, no parental assistance, just a 40k a year income and a dependant child? That's not reality, man. 40k a year qualifies you for roughly a $1200 principal, interest, tax and utility payment if you have absolutely no other debt, especially car loans. That gets you about 130k at 5 year rates. And that's if you have great credit. Today there's no way at all for anyone who makes 40k a year to own a car and condo without some external funds available. It's impossible. Even in 2000 with zero down, no qualifying assumable mortgages it would have been very hard.
Budgeting is a problem for sure. But the real problem is people not using money correctly. Working for money is not an effecient way to get ahead. That's what's so frustrating about these union things. Fighting for an extra couple bucks an hour is not even close to what people should be worrying about.
It's kind of a simple equation. The 7/11 guy is happier with 20 bucks an hour than with 12. That makes sense to you. So why wouldn't someone making 20 bucks an hour be happier with 30? Is there a bell curve I'm missing here, like when you hit $150 bucks an hour you start getting sadder? | |
|
| Safeway strikers
Posted: 9/9/2009 7:52:20 PM |
Today there's no way at all for anyone who makes 40k a year to own a car and condo without some external funds available. It's impossible.
Like I said, they bought their condos prior to 2000.
(My house in Belmead was appraised at $135G in 1997. in 2006 it was worth $465G.)
You're right, BUYING a house today is not possible at $20 per hour. But once again, you are equating happiness with ownership of goods. Who says people have to own a house to be happy? Who says people, especially people in a major centre like Edmonton, that has good public transit, have to own a car to be happy? Are these standards you have decided create happiness? Maybe for you, maybe not for others.
So why wouldn't someone making 20 bucks an hour be happier with 30?
OK I will use one of your phrases to reply to this comment...
"I hope you know better than that" | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
