Offline
A walkout is not imminent, but it certainly could happen. Members of the Canadian Press - which publishes hundreds of print stories a week as well as providing radio stations with hourly newscasts, especially on the weekends and overnights - are pleading with management for raises, claiming some of them can no longer afford to live in the areas where they work.
Their union, the Canadian Media Guild, has written a letter to management pleading their case, without any reference to a walkout. But they insist the situation is dire.
"During six months of good-faith negotiations, we’ve asked for a general wage increase that matches inflation and the rising cost of living in Canada. Our previous five-year deal provided a total of a three per cent general wage increase. We’ve fallen significantly behind, as inflation was almost seven times higher.”
Not sure how many people know that one of the owners of The Canadian Press is The Toronto Star. I find it ironic that the paper that always advocates for "the little guy" in its pages sometimes does not apply those same standards to its own workers.
Hopefully, they can resolve this before anything happens. The Media Guild tends to be one of the more reasonable unions, and they hope an appeal to reason will work.
Job action would be disastrous for already beleaguered newspapers and radio stations alike.
Canadian Press employees appeal for wage increase to match rising cost of living
Offline
When exactly did the Star not apply the same standards for it's own workers? I don't recall any workers or unions complaining how they were treated when the Star was sold five years ago. If you are referring to Metroland it was a separate company and it's situation with bankruptcy was with Nordstar Capital.
Offline
If they go on strike, there's no shortage of scabs.
Offline
paterson1 wrote:
When exactly did the Star not apply the same standards for it's own workers? I don't recall any workers or unions complaining how they were treated when the Star was sold five years ago. If you are referring to Metroland it was a separate company and it's situation with bankruptcy was with Nordstar Capital.
Let's just say I know someone who used to be one of the key union negotiators for the Guild and he told me a lot of behind-the-scene stories that prove my point. The Star often stood in the way of simple things getting done and would sometimes - not but in fairness, always - nickel-and-dime the CP workers.
And don't even ask about what happened with their pension fund, because it wasn't pretty.
Offline
RadioActive wrote:
paterson1 wrote:
When exactly did the Star not apply the same standards for it's own workers? I don't recall any workers or unions complaining how they were treated when the Star was sold five years ago. If you are referring to Metroland it was a separate company and it's situation with bankruptcy was with Nordstar Capital.
Let's just say I know someone who used to be one of the key union negotiators for the Guild and he told me a lot of behind-the-scene stories that prove my point. The Star often stood in the way of simple things getting done and would sometimes - not but in fairness, always - nickel-and-dime the CP workers.
And don't even ask about what happened with their pension fund, because it wasn't pretty.
I don't think you know what you are talking about. The Star's various pensions were taken over by CAAT (the community college pension funds) about five years before the company was sold. I have never heard anyone who felt that they weren't treated fairly by Torstar after it was sold. I think you are still confused about the more recent situation with Metroland which had nothing to do with the former Torstar and was with the new owners.
Torstar to their credit knew the writing was on the wall and made arrangements that all of their employees in the pension would be provided for. The retirees all voted on whether CAAT would take over the pension funds, and it was approved by a large margin. My pension is actually better than what I had with the Star. As far as your friend is concerned, union negotiators and the company are always at loggerheads during negotiations. Nature of the business, so his comment about the company "nickel and diming" is not surprising and to be expected.
Last edited by paterson1 (June 6, 2025 10:15 am)
Offline
I can't reveal what he told me, but it goes against a lot of what you've said. And he was deep in the weeds on the negotiations, with the Star often being very obstinate about their offers and counter-offers.
It was in confidence, but he was especially emphatic about the battle over their pensions. It almost involved the government getting involved if I recall, but again, I wasn't privy to all the details and I'm not at liberty to say a lot more. Just that I'm getting this from someone who fought these battles for a very long time and would know what happened better than any of us here. Because he was right in the middle of it.
Mostly, things went well. But at times, they didn't. And as stated previously, I never got the impression that the Media Guild was one of those over-the-top militant unions that makes outrageous demands and holds a company hostage. But it didn't always mean the other side was as reasonable.
Offline
The Star would have been no different than any other company during negotiations, same with the union. When Torstar was hoping to off load their many pensions that they were managing, the plans themselves were financially still in decent shape. But they felt that the newspaper business was not going to show any improvement for years and didn't want to see the pensions become underfunded and potentially fail, similar to what happened with Sears.
The community college pension fund, CAAT was starting to expand and had taken over the plans for some private companies. So when Torstar was sold about five years ago, all of their former pension plans were already firmly established with CAAT and had been so for about four years. Torstar was totally out of handling any pensions.
Your friend may or may not have had some inside knowledge but as far as the pensions and how employees were treated, there wasn't any issue.
Offline
All I can say is he was there. Neither of us were. I think his memories of that time is far more correct than you or me. He's one of the most straightforward people I know. I believe his version of events over someone who wasn't there.
At times, The Star played hardball almost to the point of being obstinate. Hence my comments about their standing up for the little guy in print - but perhaps, not always in reality when it's their bottom line that's in question.
This is from the horse's mouth. I believe the horse!
Offline
Companies always play hardball. Why would the Star be any different?
I worked for Torstar for about 16 years and I know how the employees were treated. Did your friend actually work at Torstar, or was he a negotiator for the union. If he didn't work for them, then his "inside knowledge" is limited. He would only know about the negotiations and little about the culture of the company. Employees were always treated fairly and with respect. The company also had great benefits and paid above average. In my case, the pension plan I was under was originally initiated by the company and not by the union which didn't exist at the time.
Offline
He worked for the Canadian Press for several decades, so he knew how the place worked - or was supposed to. He was also there when it was taken over by Torstar, the Globe and Mail and a few other news conglomerates. His tales from the boardroom negotiations did not give me any reason to think management was particularly good to the employees.
He did not work for the Star per se, but for CP when Torstar et. al. eventually assumed control of it. As noted, you can argue all you like about how good or bad the paper was to its employees who worked directly for Torstar. Good for you if they did.
He was at a company they took over. They were not especially good to those workers, who had to fight tooth and nail for everything.
I'm not sure why you're insisting on arguing about this. The bottom line is he was there for every moment of those negotiations for years. You weren't. I believe his version of events and he was a factual by-the-book type of news person, not prone to exaggeration. I believe the person who was there - not the ones who weren't.
Offline
Torstar didn't or doesn't own CP and didn't "take them over". They are one of three or four owners as you mentioned. If the Star was tough in negotiations, so were the other owners. I guess my point is...so what? They are negotiating, why would being firm and resilient in negotiations be surprising to you....
Offline
paterson1 wrote:
Torstar didn't or doesn't own CP and didn't "take them over". They are one of three or four owners as you mentioned. If the Star was tough in negotiations, so were the other owners. I guess my point is...so what? They are negotiating, why would being firm and resilient in negotiations be surprising to you....
Because they were founded calling themselves "The Paper Of The People" and lean heavily left, always publishing editorials in favour of "the little guy." Except, it seems, when it's their ox being gored. Then it's full bore every man for himself and screw the little guy. There's a word for that: hypocrisy.
Offline
RadioActive wrote:
paterson1 wrote:
Torstar didn't or doesn't own CP and didn't "take them over". They are one of three or four owners as you mentioned. If the Star was tough in negotiations, so were the other owners. I guess my point is...so what? They are negotiating, why would being firm and resilient in negotiations be surprising to you....
Because they were founded calling themselves "The Paper Of The People" and lean heavily left, always publishing editorials in favour of "the little guy." Except, it seems, when it's their ox being gored. Then it's full bore every man for himself and screw the little guy. There's a word for that: hypocrisy.
Sorry RA, you are grasping now. I don't know how many times you accuse the paper of being hypocrits only to be shot down. The Star doesn't control the negotiations with CP and they don't screw the little guy. They are one of the owners of CP. It is a co-op..remember? And the current owners of the Star don't have anything to do with the paper of the Honderichs or Atkinsons. You have never worked there and neither has your union friend. So you have absolutely no knowledge how the employees were treated. And negotiations with CP and the Star are not the same thing.
Offline
paterson1 wrote:
RadioActive wrote:
paterson1 wrote:
Torstar didn't or doesn't own CP and didn't "take them over". They are one of three or four owners as you mentioned. If the Star was tough in negotiations, so were the other owners. I guess my point is...so what? They are negotiating, why would being firm and resilient in negotiations be surprising to you....
Because they were founded calling themselves "The Paper Of The People" and lean heavily left, always publishing editorials in favour of "the little guy." Except, it seems, when it's their ox being gored. Then it's full bore every man for himself and screw the little guy. There's a word for that: hypocrisy.
Sorry RA, you are grasping now. I don't know how many times you accuse the paper of being hypocrits only to be shot down. The Star doesn't control the negotiations with CP and they don't screw the little guy. They are one of the owners of CP. It is a co-op..remember? And the current owners of the Star don't have anything to do with the paper of the Honderichs or Atkinsons. You have never worked there and neither has your union friend. So you have absolutely no knowledge how the employees were treated. And negotiations with CP and the Star are not the same thing.
... and the Star is hardly "heavily left". It generally supports the Liberals. Centrist would be fair. The lack of any papers supporting the NDP or anything substantially left might make the Star seem Left. But it isn't...
Last edited by Saul (June 6, 2025 1:51 pm)
Offline
I really don't understand why Bell, Corus and Rogers use CP for there hourly news in the first place. Is it that hard to have a pre recorded National newscast. CBC has been doing it for a very long time, National news at the top of the hour and local news at the bottom on the hour but only at selected times of the day. An example CBC Toronto does not have local news at 2:30am but they do at 2:30pm
Just my thoughts
Offline
It's cheaper than hiring someone. Everyone gets the same newscast. You may notice they do a sports update at the tail end of the segment, but they never, ever give a score unless the game is over. That's because it's fed out a few minutes early so the stations can grab it in their queue, and the score may have changed by then.
But a lot of stations don't even bother with the sports, and end it at "The is the Canadian Press."