The Flat Rate Forums

Admin · Site Admin Joined: 16 Apr 2007 Posts: 33 Location: Regina

Note: The 'No Flat Rate Petition' is still available to sign if you wish to show support for this issue. However, the first ~ 300 names have been delivered to the bargaining committee.

ONLY YOUR NAME & COMMENTS WILL BE DISPLAYED ONLINE!

The email and phone number is for verification if the union disputes your name.

USE YOUR WORK EMAIL AND PHONE NUMBER

This makes it easy to verify you work for SaskTel.

BE SURE TO UNCLICK BOTH CHECKBOXES

This is not the time to be anonymous! This is the time to stand up and be counted!

DOUBLE SUBMISSIONS WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE REMOVED

It could also damage credibility.

AFTER SUBMITTING YOUR PETION

Follow this link to the >>>> NO FLAT RATE PETITION <<<<

Special thanks to Dawn for managing the petition on our behalf.

Dean Runge · Guest

Many many reasons, several have already been mentioned.
- If this company wants to maintain it's highly skilled workforce and attract new talented employees, it better get rid of the flat wage increases.
- We are rapidly falling behind what the Gov't and other crowns are paying, because they implement contracts that are fair to all.
- Why does this union consistently want to help out the lowest bands at the expense of the majority? (yes more members get shafted on flat rates than the ones who gain). We have had way too many flat increases in the past and we are now suffering because of it.
- It is time the union acted responsibly on behalf of all the members (and not just a few select bands) in obtaining a fair contract.

brad.berrns@sasktel.sk.ca · Guest

We have already had to live through flat raises and will never recover from this loss of income. The effect is felt for the rest of our careers and our into our pensions. We have significantly fallen behind other crowns and telco's already. Flat rate increases are totaly unacceptable and unfair. I will vote NO to any flat formula.

Allan Semeniuk · Guest

I think that a flat rate increase isn't fair to all members. The higher wage band employees have been at SaskTel the longest and therefore they should be compensated accordingly with higher wage increases. Any wage increase should be a percentage based on their existing wage therefore it’s fair to all employees.

We are not only falling behind in wages but also in travel expenses (reimbursement rate for mileage & daily food costs). We haven’t exactly been able to keep up with the cost of living increases all around us with zeros in our contracts or flat rate increases.

Being that we’ve reached the Billion dollar milestone as a company, I think we should demand to be fairly compensated within our contract.

chabd1 · Guest

This is getting to be really stupid. If our union wants us to continue with this policy of dividing our own workforce maybe we should accomodate them. While I appreciate the fact that some areas receive lower wages, usually it means that the training(schooling) can be done at a lower level. If this is to increase womens pay,it makes this totally ludicris. The women who work in my job classifications receive the same pay as I do. Job responsibilities and impact have traditionally been used to develop wage scales. Do we not deserve the same pay raise as anyone else? Why are we being penalized for training and working hard in our field of endevour.

Jacquie Prentice · Guest

I realize that a loaf of bread costs the same for everyone, but I’ll bet most people in the lower pay bands don’t have thousands of dollars in student loans to pay back nor did they sacrifice years of their lives going to University or Tech School.

There is an Out of Hour Education program at SaskTel available to all employees including those in lower paying bands. It’s their decision – their option whether they chose to use this benefit or not. This is an opportunity for them to acquire the skills and education to get higher banded jobs and make more money. The employees in higher pay bands can only rely on the union for their pay increases because we can’t go any higher in the bands.

I vote NO to flat increases - now and in the future. There's a good reason for the wage gap; it's the difference between skilled/educated labour verses unskilled labour and rightfully so, the wages SHOULD reflect that difference.

Debbie Meyers · Guest

I can't fathom why the union persists with pursuing flat rate increases. It is mind boggling and discriminates against a large portion of SaskTel's skilled labor force. When I asked the union about this the last time they negotiated a flat rate increase I was told that being a woman I should be happy that then are lessoning the wage gap amongst employees. WHAT!!! I work in Finance and the large percentage of Band 9 inscope employees are women. This logic just doesn't make sense.

I went to school, as a single mom, for 7 years and have a $30,000 loan to pay back. I chose to better myself through education so I could have that better paying job. This same opportunity exists for all employees of SaskTel and residents of Sask if they are willing to put in the extra effort.

I think the wage gap should be preserved and am strongly opposed to the flat rate increase. Keep our skilled employees in SaskTel by recognizing that their skill sets deserve to be compensated accordingly.

richr2 · Guest

no to flat tax

Rick Austin · Guest

I have a complaint regarding flat rate increases. I have worked in the craft pay scale for most of my nearly 32 year career at SaskTel. It is my opinion that flat rate increases hurts everyone as time goes on.

Flat rate increases do certainly help the employees at the bottom end of the pay scale in the beginning. The funny thing is most people do not stay at the bottom of the pay scales. A flat rate increase is indeed a downward sliding scale increase. The more a person earns, the smaller the percentage increase he/ she receives. Everyone in this company advances to the top of their pay scale or bids on other jobs with a higher banding to increase their take home pay! I believe management would certainly like to offer flat rate increases. It saves this company money in the long run. My monetary example pertains to the craft scale.

I was first hired as an apprentice lineman in 1975. The starting wage then was $154.50 per week. A top paid craft person was $308 per week. The latest figures I can find today is the wages to the end of March, 2007; the wage scale before the 2.2% COLA increase. An apprentice lineman hired off the street now is paid $744.75 per week. A top paid craft person is $1,086.75 per week. In percentage terms, an apprentice was paid 50.16% (154.5/308) of what a top craft person was paid in 1975. In todays’ terms that same apprentice is paid 68.53% (744.75/1,086.75) of a top paid craft person. Does the apprentice stay at the bottom of his pay scale? NO! He/she moves up like everybody else. Based on the above percentages, if the same percentage that was in effect in 1975 were in effect today, a top paid craft person would be paid $1,484.69 per week (744.75/.5016)!! Everyone who stays long enough in this company makes it to the top of their pay scale. This company, in this example, is saving nearly $400 per week per employee with 5 years or more service in the craft band 8 scale!

Concerned · Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 12

Great point Rick.

The union is trying to brand this as low bands vs high bands. We are trying to show that it is not who benefits the most, but rather it is an unfair principle. The truth seems to be that those at thew lower bands are most negatively affected as it is the other low bands that are cannibalizing their increases to the greatest effect.

The main point is that EVERYBODY LOSES WITH FLAT RATING except the new hires.
_________________
Flat Rate?
Fat Chance !

Flat Rate = Flat Line · Guest

It looks like that the "new hires" only benefit while they are at the bottom steps of the bands. As they progress in their careers ( and therefore into higher Bands and in Steps ) they begin to lose out long term for their short sighted gain. As posted earlier and in many other posts, this cannot be reversed and you never recover from the cumulative effect of compounding this error.

I can only assume our Union, who is fighting so hard for this flat rate, will be able to show us members how this will benefit us. Otherwise, I think it is very appropriate to conclude that they cannot back their claims.

After attending a meeting last Thursday with them, I think they believe in process, not fairness, and are afraid to admit this is an error they should correct.

Do the right thing, Mr President. This will be to your detriment next year

Guest · Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:48 pm Post subject:

A flat rate raise proposal will manipulate the bands so that the difference between them will be eliminated. Banding is an issue that should be dealt with outside of contract negotiations. Flat rate negotiations in effect reduce the wage increase received by those in higher banded jobs. This is unfair and demonstrates that a level of corruption is present in the union. If a smaller number of union members are in higher banded positions than in the lower, fair representation for upper band employees is lost. These flat rate proposals should not be a part of any more negotiations. The obvious conflict of interest that occurs by allowing this sort of negotiation warrants that a clause be added to our union code of conduct that would eliminate such proposals in the future. The present proposed pattern of wage increases would hurt our members and cause our level of expertise in higher banded jobs to fall below industry standard.

Gord Chubak

doris hammett · Guest

No flat rate.

Guest

The only guaranteed action is:
Vote NO to the contract
Vote NO to going on strike

The union knows that the flat rate wage raise is why we are voting NO and they will then be forced to take it off the table or we will reject the contract. We will work until the union gives us percentage raises.

When the union gives percentage raises, we can look at the merits of the contract.

Why vote NO? We all know why but the union has us. We have given them plenty of time to listen to us and they NEVER WILL. Here’s proof. This same issue has been going around for years. From 1999:

This information is copied from a spreadsheet created Feb. 22, 1999 and widely circulated by a rank and file member. The original spread sheet showed the wages from the different bands and showed the calculations of who the winners and losers if flat wage raises were applied over a 3 year period. Some of you were here and experience that flat rate fiasco as well. The figures were based on a starting point of:

35 hr week
Band 1 430.85
Band 2 514.15
Band 3 540.75
Band 4 595.70
Band 5 650.65
Band 6 705.60
Band 7 760.55
Band 8 815.50
Band 9 870.45
SYS 1015

YEAR 1998 Instead of a 2% raise, a 42 cents/hr which works out to a raise as stated below and for that year, you lost
Band 7 1.93% -26.57
Band 8 1.80% -83.72
Band 9 1.69% -140.87
SYS 1.45% -291.2

YEAR 1999 Instead of having a cumulative 4% raise, you now have 84 cents/hr, which works out to a cumulative raise as stated below and for that year, you lost
Band 7 3.80% -97.64
Band 8 3.55% -213.08
Band 9 3.33% -328.52
SYS 2.90% -603.51

YEAR 1999 Instead of having a cumulative 6% raise, you now have 1.26/hr, which works out to a cumulative raise as stated below and for that year, you lost
Band 7 5.60% -197.67
Band 8 5.23% -371.4
Band 9 4.91% -545.13
SYS 4.34% -915.82

Total losses in just those 3 years
Band 7 -268.74
Band 8 -500.76
Band 9 -732.78
SYS -1228.13

- See that instead of getting a 6% raise, the people most shafted got close to only 4%
- At the end of 3 years the people most shafted are getting 915.82 less per year for the rest of their working lives.
- For the years 2001 - 2006 (6 x 915.82) the people most shafted loose 5494.92.
- Just a footnote, by comparison, at the end of the 3 years, the most subsidized people (Band 1) get a raise of 9.63%

Guest · Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 5:31 pm Post subject:

No flat rate