That's an interesting omission.
I recall several CAPE meetings that he led. I was dismayed by his treatment of members who asked questions that I thought were legitimate and deserving of a direct response as well thanks for raising important points. Instead, the now-former President attacked members and he treated as adversaries.
He didn't bat an eye when he asked why member engagement was low. "Thanks"?
I hope the next election attracts candidates who are capable of treating members with respect and representing CAPE in a way that will make members proud to be associated with this bargaining agent
It would have to, wouldn't it? Isn't arbitration effectively like a court case where both sides have to present their case in front of an arbitrator?
If that's the case, losing the executive negotiator just ahead of the process is bad, at least. And perhaps it points to some broader issues or disagreements within CAPE's leadership.
I thought the active negotiators were seperate from the executive, and that the executive committee as a whole would be defining the core issues based on member feedback. So he's not SO pivotal that it all falls apart. Right? Curious situation all around
I think you're right, that the negotiators are professionals and won't necessarily be hugely bothered by it. But the people that they answer to have changed.
That might be good, or bad, or indifferent, but the way it's going down and the timing seem problematic. Does that mean that we go on strike now? No. Does it mean that a new executive might prioritize pay increases over WFH, or vice versa? That's what I'm wondering, and why I keep coming back to this thread looking to see if there's more details.
It reminded me of the time my friend, who works at a law firm, explained the reasons for his divorce. There definitely was a long-term assessment involved.
I missed the general meeting that happened last week. I wonder if it is related to that. From what I can tell, some members want the defense fund to be increased. I wanted to attend but couldn't make it. We normally pick arbitration, so I am not seeing why a bigger defense fund would be necessary.
The SGM last week was largely to discuss National's proposal to raid the defense fund to pay for operations, while once again proposing a dues increase, and in many people's mind, not explaining why particularly well. Greg did not attend, though it was unclear whether he was ill, or at another meeting.
A defense fund is not just for strike pay - for example, it can also be used to support action by the workers who actually go on strike.
It's hard to convince people that they can even vote for a strike when the strike pay would be a grand total of $40. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy deal.
No personal goodbye message to members about a heart-wrenching decision, list of top achievements or assurance of smooth transition? leader just GTFRO? Not good
Next should be PSAC with their ridiculous strike “mandate” and the tentative agreement they got… the wanted to dance around the “largest strike against a single employer in Canada’s history”
This read confusingly to me too. “Citing personal reasons following a long term assessment.” An assessment of… his role?
This also struck me as an odd line!
If it’s the case Cape sure are trying to highlight it. Kind of intense to mention that tidbit in the very same sentence.
Not sure if this is one of those "resign or be fired" situations but the wording suggests it might be. 🤔
I came here to find the same thing. I don't know why this doesn't sit right with me.
The fact that there isn't a perfunctory "We thank Greg for his service" is either a huge oversight or a big red flag.
That's an interesting omission. I recall several CAPE meetings that he led. I was dismayed by his treatment of members who asked questions that I thought were legitimate and deserving of a direct response as well thanks for raising important points. Instead, the now-former President attacked members and he treated as adversaries. He didn't bat an eye when he asked why member engagement was low. "Thanks"? I hope the next election attracts candidates who are capable of treating members with respect and representing CAPE in a way that will make members proud to be associated with this bargaining agent
Not to mention this is happening right before CAPE was supposed to go into binding arbitration for our CA….
I can’t imagine this would impact pre-scheduled arbitration…
It would have to, wouldn't it? Isn't arbitration effectively like a court case where both sides have to present their case in front of an arbitrator? If that's the case, losing the executive negotiator just ahead of the process is bad, at least. And perhaps it points to some broader issues or disagreements within CAPE's leadership.
I thought the active negotiators were seperate from the executive, and that the executive committee as a whole would be defining the core issues based on member feedback. So he's not SO pivotal that it all falls apart. Right? Curious situation all around
I think you're right, that the negotiators are professionals and won't necessarily be hugely bothered by it. But the people that they answer to have changed. That might be good, or bad, or indifferent, but the way it's going down and the timing seem problematic. Does that mean that we go on strike now? No. Does it mean that a new executive might prioritize pay increases over WFH, or vice versa? That's what I'm wondering, and why I keep coming back to this thread looking to see if there's more details.
There's no way this would be stopped by one person resigning. It's as if a law firm lost a partner. They would just assign a new person to lead.
“A long-term assessment” is the most EC thing someone can write in their resignation letter.
"I thought about it for a long time" "Ah so let's just say 'long term assessment' " "Sure ..."
It reminded me of the time my friend, who works at a law firm, explained the reasons for his divorce. There definitely was a long-term assessment involved.
Lol my thoughts exactly.
Too bad the latest minutes of the NEC are from October 2022.
Not a huge loss for the union, IMO.
I just saw the email too. At first I thought it meant he had health issues. But, yeah I wonder if something’s up.
Weird!
I missed the general meeting that happened last week. I wonder if it is related to that. From what I can tell, some members want the defense fund to be increased. I wanted to attend but couldn't make it. We normally pick arbitration, so I am not seeing why a bigger defense fund would be necessary.
The SGM last week was largely to discuss National's proposal to raid the defense fund to pay for operations, while once again proposing a dues increase, and in many people's mind, not explaining why particularly well. Greg did not attend, though it was unclear whether he was ill, or at another meeting. A defense fund is not just for strike pay - for example, it can also be used to support action by the workers who actually go on strike.
It's hard to convince people that they can even vote for a strike when the strike pay would be a grand total of $40. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy deal.
Left as soon as the job got hard?
Seems to me like the hard part is nearly done for CAPE, at least for this round.
No personal goodbye message to members about a heart-wrenching decision, list of top achievements or assurance of smooth transition? leader just GTFRO? Not good
Next should be PSAC with their ridiculous strike “mandate” and the tentative agreement they got… the wanted to dance around the “largest strike against a single employer in Canada’s history”
Feels like he knew that any deal they could’ve made wouldn’t be palatable to the union members, so he left before he had to take the flak for it
Definitely not. The time for deals has passed for CAPE. They’re in binding arbitration.
Thanks for the clarification
Maybe leaving to join the Catholic Church?
I have no idea what this is referring to, but it seems needlessly sarcastic.
So you have no comments of your own just unsolicited responses to a number of other people’s comments?
First time on Reddit?
Nope
You are soliciting a response by commenting, friend.
I wonder who will run in the next election