<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Five-year deal at Globe and Mail</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/07/07/five-year-deal-at-globe-and-mail/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/07/07/five-year-deal-at-globe-and-mail/</link>
	<description>Can you think of a better name?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:36:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin</title>
		<link>http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/07/07/five-year-deal-at-globe-and-mail/comment-page-1/#comment-85931</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:51:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=6175#comment-85931</guid>
		<description>Just for the record, we (the union) didn&#039;t have a problem with the wage offer. The main fights were the proposed pension switch, and a clause that would have allowed the company to unilaterally demote anyone to a lower payscale.

In the end, the pension plan will only apply to new hires (sucks to be them, I guess), and the language of the clause now says the company will make a &quot;reasonable effort&quot; to find a position with equal pay when it wishes to demote someone. Who defines what constitutes &quot;reasonable effort&quot; is a good question.

Some people suspect this is a trojan-horse clause that will allow the company to skirt seniority rules and lay off older, higher-paid employees, by first transferring/demoting them to a different pay category where they will have no seniority.

Now we&#039;ll discover if those suspicions are true.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just for the record, we (the union) didn't have a problem with the wage offer. The main fights were the proposed pension switch, and a clause that would have allowed the company to unilaterally demote anyone to a lower payscale.</p>
<p>In the end, the pension plan will only apply to new hires (sucks to be them, I guess), and the language of the clause now says the company will make a "reasonable effort" to find a position with equal pay when it wishes to demote someone. Who defines what constitutes "reasonable effort" is a good question.</p>
<p>Some people suspect this is a trojan-horse clause that will allow the company to skirt seniority rules and lay off older, higher-paid employees, by first transferring/demoting them to a different pay category where they will have no seniority.</p>
<p>Now we'll discover if those suspicions are true.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

