Questions.
● “Wouldn’t a structured pension plan benefit both the company and employees in the
long run?”
● “If we lower wages for new hires too much, won’t it hurt recruitment efforts?”
“Research shows that competitive wages lead to lower turnover. Our proposal balances
employer needs and worker satisfaction.”
“A tiered wage system helps new hires get started while protecting long-term employees.”
1. Wages – Is Your Proposal Sustainable?
Your Question:
“Group 6 is demanding an 8% wage increase at ratification and a 4.25% increase every
year. How do you propose the company can afford this if revenue doesn’t grow at the same
rate? If the company struggles financially, should we still be forced to commit to these raises,
even if it means potential job cuts?”
Follow-up Questions (If They Defend Their Position):
•
“If wages rise significantly every year, won’t this force the company to raise
prices? And if prices go up, won’t that hurt business and lead to potential job losses?”
•
“Can you guarantee that these raises won’t lead to layoffs or hiring freezes?”
•
“If the company has a bad financial year, would you rather see job cuts or
temporary wage freezes? Because one of those will have to happen.”
Trap to Force a Weak Response:
•
If they say the company must pay the wage increases no matter what → You
argue this could lead to layoffs and downsizing.
•
If they say the company can negotiate during bad years → You argue their
plan is not actually guaranteed, unlike your tiered system which already accounts for
flexibility.
2. Contract Length – Why Lock Into a Bad Deal?
Your Question:
“You are proposing a 4-year contract. But what if, after two years, wages in the industry
drop, or the company faces an economic downturn? Wouldn’t it make more sense to
renegotiate yearly instead of locking both sides into a rigid agreement?”
Your proposal commits both parties to a four-year agreement, yet economic conditions, like
you mentioned inflation rates, and industry standards are unpredictable. Given the potential
for economic downturns, shifts in labor market trends, or unforeseen financial constraints,
how do you justify restricting the employer’s ability to adapt? Would it not be more prudent to
implement a shorter contract term that allows for regular reassessment and alignment with
current economic realities?
Follow-up Questions:
•
“Wouldn’t a shorter contract ensure that workers actually get the best deal
every year instead of waiting four years to adjust to new conditions?”
•
“If a recession happens in year 2, does the company just absorb the financial
hit while still paying wage increases?”
•
“If wages in our industry go down in year 3, should employees still receive
raises beyond market value?”
Trap to Force a Weak Response:
•
If they argue long contracts create stability → You counter by saying rigidity is
dangerous in a changing economy.
•
If they argue contracts can be reopened if needed → You argue that frequent
renegotiation makes the long contract pointless, and your plan already accounts for yearly
updates.
3. Automation & Job Security – Are You Blocking Innovation?
Your Question:
“Your proposal completely bans layoffs due to automation and AI. But companies across all
industries are evolving. If we don’t adapt, won’t we just fall behind competitors who embrace
technology? How do you propose we compete if we aren’t allowed to modernize?”
Follow-up Questions:
•
“If new technology allows us to operate more efficiently, but we’re not allowed
to use it because of job security clauses, how do we ensure long-term business success?”
•
“Wouldn’t it be better to allow automation with fair severance and retraining
programs rather than banning it completely?”
•
“Are you suggesting that if automation improves the company’s efficiency, we
should ignore those advancements just to keep things the same?”
Trap to Force a Weak Response:
•
If they argue automation will hurt workers → You say blocking innovation can
lead to the business failing altogether, which means NO jobs at all.
•
If they say they’re open to negotiations on this point → You argue that your
proposal already includes severance pay and job transition support, making it more
reasonable than a full ban.
4. Grievance & Discipline – Are You Protecting Problem Employees?
Your Question:
“Your proposal reduces disciplinary records from two years to one year. But what if an
employee repeatedly violates company policies? Should serious offenses like harassment or
repeated misconduct be erased after just one year?”
Follow-up Questions:
•
“If someone commits a serious workplace violation, why should their record
disappear so quickly?”
•
“Wouldn’t this make it easier for problem employees to get away with
repeated bad behavior?”
•
“If someone had a history of discipline issues, wouldn’t reducing the record
period make it harder to track long-term patterns of misconduct?”
Trap to Force a Weak Response:
•
If they argue one year is enough → You counter by saying this ignores repeat
offenses and makes tracking bad behavior difficult.
•
If they say serious offenses should stay longer → You argue that’s exactly
why your two-year system is better—it accounts for both fairness and accountability.
Group 1 Bargaining Responses
Question 1: Clarification on Tiered Wage System (3% Less Wages)
Please clarify the statement “The tiered wage system will include all new employees
receiving 3% less wages while meeting the minimum wage requirements of $17.20”.
Please give us a numerical example of this statement, for example, out of $100. How
did you calculate this, and what source did you get this information to calculate this
information
● Explanation: The tiered wage model is formally presented in Appendix C, but it
remarkably establishes fairness and financial stability in the organization. New
employees will earn wages that are 3% less than the wages of existing
employees, allowing you to control costs while meeting the minimum wage of
$17.20 in Ontario. For example, if an existing employee earns $20/hour, the
new employee will earn $19.40/hour. This concept creates an organized
functionality for new employees to 'earn' increases after 12 months based on
two areas, time employed and performance, while allowing growth and
flexibility for the organization, and provides protection for existing employee
wages.
Question 2: Benefits of a One-Year Collective Agreement
What benefits do you see from a one year collective agreement compared to a long
term agreement? One year collective agreements are time-consuming and costly for
employers
● Explanation: As stated in Appendix C, a one-year collective agreement offers the
critical advantage of flexibility and adaptability. It allows both parties to assess and
renegotiate terms based on current financial conditions, economic changes, and
employee needs, ensuring fairness and relevance. Unlike long-term agreements, this
approach ensures the company and employees are not locked into outdated terms that
fail to reflect present-day realities. Annual reviews based on agreed economic
indicators allow necessary adjustments to be made to align with evolving
circumstances.
● Source: The one-year term proposed in Appendix C is intended to promote fairness
and efficiency, allowing both parties to address concerns and make improvements
more frequently.
Question 3: Contracting Out (Business Decisions)
● Explanation: As proposed in Group 1 Appendix C, the ability to contract out work is
essential for maintaining efficiency and competitiveness. The employer must have the
flexibility to seek specialized expertise, reduce costs, and handle short-term projects
when necessary. Contracting out based on business needs ensures that the company
can respond effectively to changing market conditions and technological
advancements. Importantly, Group 1 Appendix C emphasizes that when contracting
out results in layoffs, affected union members will be compensated through severance
pay and notice periods based on years of employment. This ensures fairness while
allowing the company to operate effectively.
● Source: The provisions in Group 1 Appendix C provide a balanced approach that
protects employees' rights while allowing the company to adapt to operational needs.
Question 4: Addressing Inflation Concerns
How do you expect employees to keep up with inflation when the median average of inflation
in Canada is 3% with it currently being 1.9% and expected to continue with tariffs and other
economical factors?
● Explanation: The proposed 2% wage increase, as outlined in Group 1 Appendix C, is
a deliberate adjustment aimed at providing immediate financial relief to employees.
This adjustment is not intended to be year-over-year but rather a reflection of current
financial realities. Group 1 Appendix C provides a framework where periodic wage
reviews will be conducted to ensure fairness and competitiveness. Additionally,
performance-based bonuses serve as an additional way for employees to increase their
earnings, providing a fair and achievable method to address concerns about inflation.
● Source: The wage adjustment model described in Group 1 Appendix C is designed
to be fair, responsive, and practical, providing employees with opportunities for
financial growth.
Since the proposed 2% salary increase appears to provide workers with an immediate fix
instead of something they could depend on each year, how does your scheme ensure
employees would be secure and competitively placed on a long-term basis with inflation
changes often exceeding this increase?
Question 5: Clarification on 2% Wage Increase
● Explanation: The 2% wage increase proposed in Group 1 Appendix C is a one-time
adjustment that applies to all current employees. It is not intended to be a recurring
yearly increase but a practical solution that reflects the company's financial situation.
Group 1 Appendix C emphasizes that wage adjustments will be periodically
reviewed based on company performance, financial viability, and overall economic
conditions. This model ensures that wages remain fair, reasonable, and aligned with
economic realities, allowing for a balanced approach that benefits both employees and
the company.
● Source: The structure laid out in Group 1 Appendix C ensures fairness while
providing the company with the flexibility to respond to changing economic
conditions.
Counterparts Agreements/Offers
Contract offer two years instead of four years
Doesn't make any sense in the first year or second year we don't make any profit we cat can
financially afford to pay these waged cause the business will got bankrupt
Thank you for your patience to engage in this important conversation, After considering the
financial situation of the business as well as the projections for the first few years, we are
offering a contract that is fair but not one that will jeopardise the future of the business. We
offer a two-year contract that includes 3% wage increases each year for all positions. This
contract will help us ensure continued growth and prevent any risk of financial instability.
We get that pay is important and want to let you know that when we are in a better position,
we will look at the offer again to see if we can increase it. This offer can also come with
bonuses based on how well you perform. We think this is an approach that is both realistic
and fair, as it will ensure the company’s stability while also providing for the employees.
Their counteroffers
Duration of the contract offering 3 years predictability and costly and very time consuming
our employees can strike? Wage review 2 years instead of one. Wages will remain the same
at the union provided. For example, every year.
Thank you for working with us towards a fair agreement. After extremely careful
consideration, we are prepared to accept your proposal of a three-year contract with a twoyear wage review period at 6% one time and 4.25% annually . We believe this structure
provides your members with the stability they need, while also ensuring the company is not
burdened financially.
However, as part of the adjustments to the wage structure and other financial parameters, we
will require the removal of the pension plan.since this is not a priority for you guys so
inconclusive we will remove it so we can afford the 6% once time and the 4.5% annually us
to reach a fair agreement that benefits all parties.
we are willing to accept your proposed 6% wage increase for the first year, followed by a
4.25% increase in the second year, and we agree to renegotiate wages after this two-year
period. We remain committed to reaching a fair and sustainable agreement and look forward
to working together toward a solution.
Thank you for your response and for the careful consideration of our proposal. We
understand your concerns, but we want to be clear that we will not be changing our position
on the wage increases. We are still committed to the 6% wage increase for the first year,
followed by a 4.25% increase in the second year, with a wage renegotiation after this twoyear period.
We also want to clarify that the pension plan and benefits were not mentioned in your
Appendix C, and as part of the adjustments to the wage structure and other financial
parameters, we are only removing the pension plan. This decision is being made in order to
afford the agreed-upon wage increases without placing an undue financial burden on the
company.
We remain open to further discussions on other aspects of the agreement, but we do not
intend to revise the decision regarding the pension plan. Our goal is to reach a fair agreement
that benefits both parties, and we are hopeful we can move forward with the terms as
proposed.
We are pleased to have reached an agreement that provides both stability and growth
opportunities for our employees while ensuring the continued viability of the company. After
thoughtful negotiations, we have successfully aligned on key issues, and we are confident
that this agreement will serve the best interests of both parties. We appreciate your
cooperation and dedication throughout this process and look forward to a continued strong
and productive partnership. This marks a positive step forward, and we are excited to move
ahead together.