PetitionOnline.ie
Browse Petitions Contact the petition author Contact Us Languages Manage your signatures Log in
Start a Petition

Request to cancel the PSAC and TB vote (PA, SV and EB groups)

Contact the author of the petition

Guest#226 Dec 23, 2010, 05:13

Inacceptable!

Totallement inacceptable! Ce sera quoi la prochaine fois, nos fonds de pension?
Guest#227 Dec 24, 2010, 03:31

Really?

#127: - Really? 

Thank you for your comments. However, it is not a matter of private v. public. There is nothing stopping anyone in Canada from applying and working for the government. Simply go to www.jobs.gc.ca and apply. What is happening here is a direct attack against women, visual minorities and those with disabilities. The only group that has lost their severance is comprised mostly of these traditionally disadvantaged persons. It is not the MPs, the Prime Minister, the Executive groups that have lost money, it is our mothers, our sisters, our sons and our daughters, it is you and your neighbour that have lost out on even an opportunity to better your life for yourself and your family. I just don't know where this competition to see who has it worse off comes from. The only people that benefit from that are the corporate heads and politicians.

I should also mention here that I worked for many years in the private sector and actually took a bit of a pay cut to work for the government, but that was ok, because the government offered severance and a better pension. I do not need maternity leave top up or family leave days, but I most certainly wouldn't begrudge someone else for having it. I did like the freedom that the private sector offered and the opportunity for advancement. There is too much politics in the public sector. It's hard on morale.  There are pros and cons to public v private and it is a choice that a person makes when they decide to work for the government. But that is the nice thing about Canada. We have choice and freedom and the ability to make a change.

I do not think people are upset over losing severance, I think they are upset because not everyone is giving up severance. I am pretty sure if Mr. Harper stood up tomorrow and said, Hi Canada we are in tough economic times and as a show of how we are all in this together effective immediately we all give up our severance. And Mr. Gordon followed suit we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Guest#228 Dec 25, 2010, 08:28

Laurie

The union did not let everyone vote. Anyone who was out of town was not given the opportunity to vote. The union refused to elaborate to the members what they would lose, only what the term employees would gain. I want out of the Union! And yes, I am upset that I am losing my severance.  How else can I support myself when I go to retire if it is going to take 3 months to get my pension paid to me??

Guest#229 Dec 25, 2010, 08:40

Laurie

Oh, by the way, I saw re-opening documents for Term employees regarding leave, bearevement, etc...that is coming in to force in January. I thought the contract was not being signed until February??? How can they RE-OPEN the contract prior to the documents being signed. This gives me the feeling that we are never going to get anywhere with this petition, as the POWERS that BE, have already written our fate.
Guest#230 Dec 25, 2010, 17:21

the fact that psac agreed to this contract was a betrayal of the trust given to them by the membership. The actual voting process-with restricted times, inconvenient or impossible locations was highly questionable.

The facts you presented regarding grants to the union shows who the union is actually working for - Treasury Board not the members. The union employees got their raises and did not lose their serverance , what makes it okay for the people they represent to give up benefits

The union will  argue that the majority accepted it but with the voting process that they used they have manipulated the results.



thankyou for starting this petition

Visiteur#231 Dec 25, 2010, 20:48

Re: Re: IMPORTANT SITE BLOQUÉ à lire

#220: Lynda Paradis - Re: IMPORTANT SITE BLOQUÉ à lire 

« My Englsih is too pocket » ? 

Pas sûr que ce soit une bonne idée de confier la traduction à Google. ;)

Visiteur#232 Dec 27, 2010, 20:34

Re: Re: Re: IMPORTANT SITE BLOQUÉ à lire

#231: Visiteur - Re: Re: IMPORTANT SITE BLOQUÉ à lire 

 Je sais que Google n'est pas ce qu'il y a de mieux pour la traduction...mais c'est mieux que rien et cela donne un simple aperçu de commentaires et non la perfection d'une traduction...d'ou le fait que je ne l'ai que suggéré..

Guest#233 Dec 27, 2010, 20:53

C'est avec la volonté que nous pouvons y arriver

Certaines personnes critique clairement le déroulement du scrutin, il sont choqués et très peu élogieux envers leur syndicat et oui c'est vrai que ce qu'ils ont osé faire est un vrai désastre pour les travailleurs de la fonction publique. Je n'ai jamais vu un syndicat se permettre un mandat sur un monétaire aussi important que l'indemnité de départ. Aucunes consultations auprès de leur 95,000 membres de l'AFPC, aucuns courriels pour nous faire part du déroulement des négociations anticipées. Vous devez savoir que pour ouvrir une convention que ce soit une partie ou un autre il faut que cela soit une force majeure et qu'il y est urgence. Je ne crois pas qu'il y avait urgence d'ouvrir la convention actuellle, de plus la loi dit que la convention entre en ligne le lendemain de la signature, par contre, nous ils veulent la mettre effective seulement le 22 juin 2011 et pourtant les dates de signatures sont prévu pour le groupe de PA le 22 février 2011. D'après vous qu'est-ce que cela veut dire? Quel est l'enjeu que le syndicat tient absolument (ou a obtenu) du CT, une enveloppe pour eux et nous absolument rien. Certains vont même jusqu'a dire que dans le privé ce n'est pas mieux, oui c'est vrai, et fort possible. Mais je tiens a vous dire que personnellement ayant été une déléguée syndical durant 6 ans et négocié 2 conventions collective je n'ai jamais vu (et cela au privé) des présidents, négociateurs, ou même un comité de négociation oser négocier sans mandat un gains monétaire de la sorte sans aller consulter leur membres, ce qui veut dire arrêt de négos pour pouvoir aller voir leur membres et obtenir un mandat et si mandat est négatif et bien il n'a pas de négociation sur le point important. Et d'ailleurs 2 jours mortalités et une journée familiale ne remplacera jamais une perte monétaire de cette envergure....

Ce que le syndicat l'AFPC a fait est une insulte pour les membres et comme je le disais l'ACEP a arrêté leur négociations parce qu'il n'ont pas obtenu le mandat de négocier l'indemnité de départ et c'est exactement ce que l'AFPC aurait du faire...voilà!

Some people clearly criticizes the elections, they are shocked and very uncomplimentary to their union and yes it is true that they have dared to do is a disaster for workers in the public service. I've never seen a union allow a warrant on monetary as important as severance pay. No consultations with their 95.000 members of the PSAC, no emails to let us know the progress of negotiations early. You should know that to open a convention that is a party or another it has to be a major force and there is urgency. I do not think there was urgency to open the convention actuellle, over the law says that the agreement between online the day after the signing by cons, they want us to put effective June 22, 2011 just yet dates of signatures are expected for the group of PA February 22, 2011. According to you what that means? What is the issue that the union insists (or received) TB, a skin for them and us absolutely nothing. Some even go so far as to say that in private this is not better, yes it is true, and quite possible. But I want to personally tell you that having been a union delegate for 6 years and negotiated two collective agreements I have ever seen (and this in private) Presidents, negotiators, or even a negotiating mandate without daring to negotiate an earnings Monetary so without consult their members, which means stopping stages but to be able to see their members and get a warrant and if term is negative and although he has no bargaining on the point. And besides two days mortality and family day will never replace a monetary loss of this magnitude ....

What the PSAC union has done is an insult to the members and as I said CSBA stopped the negotiations because he did not get a mandate to negotiate severance pay and that is exactly PSAC what should have done
Guest#234 Dec 29, 2010, 22:12
Je suis entièrement d'accord que les représentants syndicaux n'ont pas respecté les membres. Ils auraient due se retirer de la table de négociation compte tenu que le mandat se terminait en juin 2011.
Guest#235 Dec 30, 2010, 17:53

confirmation

Je confirme ce que j'ai envoyé le 29dec2010

This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.

Reason for the removal: auto translation..opps

Guest#237 Jan 04, 2011, 14:30

J'encourage tout le monde à signer!

Les pertes pour les employés représentent des millers de dollars. Je crois que nous devons nous battre pour garder nos acquis.
Si on regarde toutes les augmentations que nous aurons au cours de l'année (TVQ, essence, santé, immatriculation, etc) on se rend vite compte que notre augmentation salariale de 1.5% ne suffira pas.
Considérant le fait que le syndicat ne s'est jamais soucié de l'intérêt de ses employés, je suis en faveur d'un changement de syndicat.

This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.

Guest#239 Jan 04, 2011, 16:24

Language

This petition should also be in ENGLISH
Guest#240 Jan 04, 2011, 16:41

Compensation advisor

PSAC made sure that their employees where not affected by this decision. It's funny how they are suppose to look out for us but again they have proven that it is not the case. I was at the info session and most of the questions I asked the representative, he could not answer.

a bit of info on the side:

AS-02 vs psac Compensation advisors

salary: $11,254 more for PSAC advisor per year
increase: 2.5% more than members.
severance pay: 1 week for each year of service (No Maximum)
vacation: PS: 6 weeks/30years service
psac: 6 weeks/22 years service
BB: PS: $800.00/y PSAC: $1200/y
hours of work: PS: 37.5 PSAC: 35
Parking: PS paid by employee PSAC: pays 60%
work from home: PS: internet paid by employee
PSAC pays $60.00
Guest#241 Jan 04, 2011, 16:58

Re: Language

#239: Erin Wood - Language 

Le contenu de la pétition est aussi en anglais. Comme je le spécifiait au départ je ne suis pas bilingue et je m'en excuse et les textes de commentaires je ne peut les traduires. Je suis désolé pour certains d'entres vous mais ce qui compte est que le texte de la pétition soit dans les 2 langues pour que chacun comprenne ce qu'il signe.

 

The contents of the petition is also in English. As I specified at the outset I am not bilingual and I apologize for text and comments I can not translate them. I'm sorry for some of you but what matters is that the text of the petition either in the 2 languages so that everyone understands what he is signing.
Guest#242 Jan 04, 2011, 18:07

AS_02

Je ne suis pas d'accord de la façon que nous avons voté. Ce n'était pas crédible il fallait mettre notre nom et adresse et le ministère ooù nous travaillons sur l'enveloppe et insérer le vote dans l'enveloppe. Le vote devrait être refait.
Guest#243 Jan 04, 2011, 18:19

Re: AS_02

#242: Angéline Crites - AS_02 

 

Guest#244 Jan 04, 2011, 18:27

Re: AS_02

#242: Angéline Crites - AS_02 

C'est un problème que bien des membres ont rencontré lors du scrutin dans bien des ministères. Cette situation est très questionnable et ne devrait pas avoir eu lieu.

 

Guest#245 Jan 04, 2011, 18:29

AS 02 conseillère en rémunération

J'ai demandé à John Gordon le nom de la fime accéditée qui était présente pour la vérification des bulletins de vote et il n'y en avait aucune .J'ai aussi demandé à 2 reprises pour voir les votes parce qu'il n'y a aucun nom et numéro sur les votes alors les bulletins de vote ne sont pas confidentiels .J'attend toujours la réponse

Guest#246 Jan 04, 2011, 20:20

Institutional Parole Officer

I recently stepped down from the Vice President position at our local mostly due to the bogus contract offer. Also, during my two years on the executive I noticed there was minimal communication or sharing of information from union reps beyond the local level. I tried my best at the local level, but I eventually burnt out and felt defeated by the recent vote. Given that I no longer have any faith in our union I felt it necessary to resign from my our local.
Guest#247 Jan 04, 2011, 21:05

I would like to know if the PSAC, themselves, are losing their superannuation too. Also, if the amount of superannuation that is deducted will be given to me so that I may invest it to help with my retirement?

Guest#248 Jan 04, 2011, 22:02

Re:

#247: cathy foster-cavan -  

Bonjour, Je ne crois pas que les dirigeants de l'AFPC incluant M. John Gordon ne perdront leur Indemnité de départ. Ils n'ont pas a ma connaissance négocié leur indemnité mais seulement celles de leur membres soit, nous...

Hello, I do not think the leaders of the PSAC, including Mr. Gordon will lose their severance pay. They have not to my knowledge negotiated their compensation but only those of their members is, we ...

 

Guest#249 Jan 04, 2011, 23:12

A FARCE

In Halifax we were not allowed to vote unless we sat in on an information session. Mosts of us were aware we would vote NO but since we either couldn't make it to the inconvenient voting station or had a distance to travel we did not go. This vote in favour of the contract was pure manipulation by the so called bargaining team.
Guest#250 Jan 05, 2011, 17:12
Ces renseignements, qui figure dans les trousses de ratification, sont disponible publiquement depuis que les ententes de principe sont conclues. Voir dernière page des trousses de ratification qui étaient disponible sur le site de l'AFPC.

Par contre, l'AFPC aurait dû nous consulter et nous faire part des enjeux avant de s'engager dans une entente de principe. Mais est-ce que les membres auraient été présents pour écouter?? Le taux de participation était très très faible à notre section locale.

D'après les différents témoignages recueillis, il semble effectivement que certains représentants syndicaux au sein de certaines sections locales, de différents ministères, ont fait plus de pression aux employés et n'ont pas transmis les informations.

Il y aurait lieu de remanier tout le processus de vote et de communication.