# Quebec has less than 5 days of propane...



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

... because of CN rail strike. If only, I don't know, maybe there was a way to get a reliable supply, like maybe through some kind of cylindrical conduit or something?

Now you can bet that the Parliament will be recalled early to legislate back to work for CN employees.


https://globalnews.ca/news/6199755/quebec-cn-strike/


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Maybe they can import some LPG from Nigeria...they already have that route open.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

No need to resume Parliament until the cabinet ministers settle in and they are ready.

The government still operates without Parliament and they can tell CN to negotiate in good faith or face mandatory arbitration legislation that will be permanent.

Watch how fast CN settles.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Why don't they just build a pipeline. lol


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Remember Ralph Klein's famous comment about the east freezing in the dark???


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Shouldn't this be under the "Incorrectly reported 'news'" thread ?


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

cainvest said:


> Shouldn't this be under the "Incorrectly reported 'news'" thread ?


Maybe not - My friends in Montreal had to cancel their BBQ tonight.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

The union provided lots of strike notice. CN must have known that this contract might end in a strike. The propane distribution companies were obviously aware of the threat.

So why did the impacted parties start stockpiling inventory prior to the strike. Or is there some reason why they could not. Or perhaps decided not to?

Not certain if this is factual, but I recall reading that the union actually made an offer to move propane on the rail to fend off any shortage. Is this BS or is it real?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Easier said than done if there are no spare rail cars, or track space, or locomotives. The rail system essentially runs at capacity to be profitable.

Added: Must take the union position with shakers of salt. Apparently there is a train of propane cars making its way from Edmonton but it is slow going when it is only non-union types manning the system and driving the trains. Not sure why that should be needed when propane already gets to Sarnia by pipeline. But then I don't really know much about how LPG and refined product move in Canada.

Quebec could had helped themselves by endorsing and supporting additional pipeline capacity to Montreal and Levis from Sarnia, including batching of refined products like propane, jet fuel, etc.... or by embracing natural gas more than they have. Then institutions would be using natural gas rather than propane. Propane for retail end use seems pretty archaic just like use of fuel oil.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> Propane for retail end use seems pretty archaic just like use of fuel oil.


In Quebec, they have a Heating with Green Power program that _encourages home owners to replace their central heating system or hot water heater that uses a fossil fuel other than natural gas, such as fuel oil or propane, with a system that uses exclusively electricity or one or another renewable energy sources such as:

Geothermal energy;
Forest biomass (granules)
Wood;
Wind energy;
Solar energy;
Aerothermal energy (heat pump)._

Many homes that use propane, only use it in conjunction with old-style heat pumps that don't work below about 15F. Otherwise they are on cheap hydro power.

In rural areas, in Quebec and even here in Ontario, there are not too many choices for heating. Unlike suburbs, no natural gas available, so choices are oil, propane and electricity. Plus perhaps wood. Our own home runs 100% on an air source heat pump (that also cools us in summer)


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The outstanding issues appear to be more safety related than monetary. 

The union members work the trains, so why is CN resisting implementing some safety measures such as limiting the mandatory overtime hours ?

It wouldn't be surprising if CN engineered this propane shortage. They demonstrated how little they care about their end users when they switched to moving more oil and left western grain farmers high and dry a few years ago. They only starting hauling grain again when the government levied surcharges on them.

I think there are some unionized services that should be deemed "essential services" and subject to mandatory arbitration in contract negotiations.

Unions generally favor mandatory arbitration to avoid strikes and lockouts, but companies often aren't interested when they believe the government will legislate workers back.

There is a danger of a pro or anti-leaning government from interfering, but that is somewhat offset by the opportunity to boot them out of office if needed.


----------



## undersc0re (Oct 7, 2017)

sags said:


> The outstanding issues appear to be more safety related than monetary.
> 
> The union members work the trains, so why is CN resisting implementing some safety measures such as limiting the mandatory overtime hours ?
> 
> ...


This is how cn deals with a strike where they do not want to bargain in good faith, they KNOW people will complain and back to work legislation will be implemented, so they ask for the world and then get half when someone else makes the decision...they run the intermodal trains for the world and screw the Canadiens (lol) to speed up back to work legislation and make the union employees look like a bunch of jerks. This time the public and media are catching on and figuring out the evil game cn is playing, hopefully cn gets a slap for this game if it is possible, not sure if there is a law they are breaking by purposely putting the Canadian economy at peril for personal gain and a win against the union.

Either way hopefully they go back to work so my shares keep going up!


----------



## MoneySafe (Nov 24, 2019)

undersc0re said:


> This is how cn deals with a strike where they do not want to bargain in good faith, they KNOW people will complain and back to work legislation will be implemented, so they ask for the world and then get half when someone else makes the decision...they run the intermodal trains for the world and screw the Canadian's to speed up back to work legislation and make the union employees look like a bunch of jerks. This time the public and media are catching on and figuring out the evil game cn is playing, hopefully cn gets a slap for this game if it is possible, not sure if there is a law they are breaking by purposely putting the Canadian economy at peril for personal gain and a win against the union.
> 
> Either way hopefully they go back to work so my shares keep going up!


As a union member myself (albeit an unrelated trade to train transport), I get sick and tired of hearing anytime workers fight for better worker contracts we're made out to be the villain. Who is the jerk again? Pot, meet kettle.

I'm a trades-person, but I know the difference between "Canadian's" and "Canadians" at least.

Let them hash out their workplace grievances. Its their right to fight for better wages and benefits. If you're fighting against that, then you're just a corporate shill.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trains are back running tomorrow. 

Great job by the Trudeau government to resolve the situation without the necessity of recalling the Parliament and waiting weeks for legislation to pass.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

sags said:


> Trains are back running tomorrow.
> 
> Great job by the Trudeau government to resolve the situation without the necessity of recalling the Parliament and waiting weeks for legislation to pass.


I'm glad that sanity prevailed. If the issue was only about safety, then the Fed Gov't could pass tougher regulations, but I don't know exactly what you think the gov't did to help end this strike, other than threaten back to work legislation. I've seen nothing specific.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Has anyone else been imagining Mr Lahey singing his propane song?

Search youtube for: Trailer Park Boys - Propane, Propane


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MoneySafe said:


> As a union member myself (albeit an unrelated trade to train transport), I get sick and tired of hearing anytime workers fight for better worker contracts we're made out to be the villain. Who is the jerk again? Pot, meet kettle.
> 
> I'm a trades-person, but I know the difference between "Canadian's" and "Canadians" at least.
> 
> Let them hash out their workplace grievances. Its their right to fight for better wages and benefits. If you're fighting against that, then you're just a corporate shill.


It's mainly the business people in this country, and their media mouthpieces, which try to make unions the villain. These business people simply hate unions because they are the only force capable of pushing back against management. So they spin all kinds of stories about how unions are horrible and destructive... just nonsense, really.

And thank goodness we have unions. Imagine what horrible circumstances we'd be in if we didn't have a history of unions fighting for workers.

I agree that the workers should be left alone to hash out their grievances. In fact as a CNR shareholder, I've been disappointed with CN for not giving the workers what they want. The business is doing great.... so give the workers what they want! These are reasonable requests.

Nice to have it resolved without something ridiculous like forcing people back to work. We live in a prosperous country, and this company has done extremely well (benefitting from its monopoly position as owner of our main railroad). They absolutely should be extending that prosperity to workers, who have very reasonable demands.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

james4beach said:


> ,who have very reasonable demands.


Strictly conjecture and a matter of opinion. I've seen plenty of (not all) union members who position themselves for priority scheduling and overtime, minimizing work effort, and have the audacity to use their seniority to "back-track" out younger more productive workers. Work forces need to work on productivity models, not seniority models. Professionals use their resume to justify themselves and their positions in the work force.

Off-topic, but in BC, it has gotten even worse under the NDP government. Only certain unions have been given the green light to work on selected government infrastructure contracts and others are shut out. Patronage has gone amok and the taxpayer suffers because of it. We need 'right to work' legislation here.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

Totally agree, J4B


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The boys on the trains have had (and still have) it very easy compared to most other jobs. I have several old fossil employees there that are friends of mine...bunch of complainers if ever I saw one.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eder said:


> The boys on the trains have had (and still have) it very easy compared to most other jobs. I have several old fossil employees there that are friends of mine...bunch of complainers if ever I saw one.


The biggest issue from guys I used to know 'on the rails' was the tough scheduling, layovers. etc. That does play havoc with one's biological system and time away from home, but that is the nature of the beast. Don't like it? Don't take a job 'on the rails' to begin with. No one is forcing anyone to work where they hate it. That is plain stupid.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Excessive scheduling of hours has been a long standing issue going back years. The railroads pledged to address the issue but failed, so it was left to the union to defend their members.

If an accident occurs because the engineer fell asleep, it is the engineer who will pay a personal price for it. As a corporation CN pays a fine and continues business as usual.


----------



## undersc0re (Oct 7, 2017)

The way It was explained to me was that the managers do not abide by all the contract agreements to do with rest and length of work hours. The old guys were averaging a trip in 5 or 6 hours to the away terminal 4 or 5 hour rest then another 5 or 6 hour trip home(years ago). If trips were bad for some reason they would relieve them, And have them to the final destination within 10 hours. Nowadays trips can easily be 10-12 hours there 14 hours resting and 10-12 hours back home. You start your trip quite often unrested, and never know when you will be called from the away from home station to go back home. They quite often wait for a room to come open and get cleaned due to packed bunkhouses and understaffing. I am sure it would be easier if they knew when they were going to work at either end. 
It was nice to see the government was minimally involved and the mediators I am sure were involved and watching to make sure corporate was not just purposely pushing the back to work legislation along such as was obvious when they ran only intermodal container trains and no grain! Why would a company make it so obvious that they were doing eveything they could to piss off farmers and whatever other customers of commodoties such as propane and fuel in order to have other people push for back to work legislation...kind of backfired I think.
Then in the news right after the union announced the strike is over CN announced a change in management of head of human resources, maybe that manager was being a little bit of a hitler in a very obvious unprofessional way, just assuming with the timing and all.
Hopefully share price and everything is good to go now.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> The biggest issue from guys I used to know 'on the rails' was the tough scheduling, layovers. etc. That does play havoc with one's biological system and time away from home, but that is the nature of the beast. Don't like it? Don't take a job 'on the rails' to begin with. No one is forcing anyone to work where they hate it.




a supercilious "let them eat cake" "don't take a job on the rails" argument doesn't apply when it comes to any nation's transportation, telecommunications, utilities, emergency medical, food security, water treatment & police services.

these are vital, crucial services. Canada has to pull together to keep them going.

when workers have grievances these have to be addressed.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I doubt AltaRed would apply the same standard to oil workers in Alberta.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I've always thought that certain jobs should be designated by law as 'essential services' and the right to strike should not be allowed on the table. At the same time, their pay, work conditions, etc. should be determined by a mediator every time, not negotiated between the employer and employee themselves.

Of course neither the employers or the unions (who would have no reason to exist in these 'essential services') are in favour of that at all and their backing for politicians is given accordingly. So, I don't look for an MP to stand up in Parliament and propose such a common sense solution since it would be political suicide to do so.

Which brings me to my other belief that no politician should be allowed to stand for re-election. The first priority of any politician once elected is to be re-elected and all their thinking and voting derives from that. Remove re-election from the equation and there would be no advantage to any politician to vote any way other than for what they believed to be best for their constituents. Imagine a politician doing that!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You underestimate what unions do for their members. Contract negotiation is a very small part of their function and occurs for a few days or weeks every few years.

Health and safety issues, member grievances, assistance navigating government programs like EI, workers compensation, and negotiated benefits such as life insurance, sick and disability pay, education and recreation programs are the main functions the union representatives perform at all times. Unions may also fund legal fees for a member if the issue requires it.

I don't know that I would agree unions would oppose mandatory arbitration provided it was provided neutral and "hands off" from the government. 

It has been my experience that mediators/arbitrators tend to issue judgements that favor the union more than the company.

Perhaps that is a the result of union demands being more reasonable than company demands tend to be.

Companies also want to operate their own business. They don't want a unbiased third party making decisions for them.

Personally, I would like to see essential services negotiated by arbitration, but am not hopeful business would support the idea.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Longtimeago said:


> I've always thought that certain jobs should be designated by law as 'essential services' and the right to strike should not be allowed on the table. At the same time, their pay, work conditions, etc. should be determined by a mediator every time, not negotiated between the employer and employee themselves.


I think that is already the case in some cases, but more services should be declared essential services with rights to strike taken away. But some mechanism would be required to ensure there was a balanced and fair way for unions to negotiate on an equal footing. If a mediator doesn't work after a certain period of time after end of contract period, then 'baseball' type arbitration tends to be most workable solution. Each party presents their best position and arbitration picks one or the other. 

I didn't follow the CN situation this time around but I understand it wasn't wages that were the issue. As I understand it, at least some of those were already in the 6 figures. It was working hours and working conditions. As I said posted earlier, workers have the option to leave the industry and if enough do, then the employer has to up its working environment accordingly. The employer would be stupid to lose too many experienced workers given the often critical health and safety issues associated with rail operations. That is what happens in more 'open' environments. 

The same sort of thing applies in a number of similar industries such as airlines, hospitals, public safety, nuclear power, petro-chemical, refining, and oil field process operations. The employers have to offer enough incentive to keep a well trained and experienced work force engaged. If not, the employers are putting pubic safety at risk and need to be appropriately taken to the woodshed.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

A lot of us worked 35 years of 60 hour weeks...never fell asleep . I guess riding the rails is harder....my bud is so fat he's hardly able to breath in and out yet CP can't replace him for another 2 years.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eder said:


> A lot of us worked 35 years of 60 hour weeks...never fell asleep . I guess riding the rails is harder....my bud is so fat he's hardly able to breath in and out yet CP can't replace him for another 2 years.


True. I typically worked 50-55 hours/week for much of my career. Seniority is good if the folks 'pay their way' in experience and productivity. Sucks when they are deadwood and they really cannot be released based on productivity alone. There are issues in any work environment though. Nothing is perfect.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> A lot of us worked 35 years of 60 hour weeks...never fell asleep . I guess riding the rails is harder....my bud is so fat he's hardly able to breath in and out yet CP can't replace him for another 2 years.


Sorry to hear that. This doesn't sound healty, but I guess you do what you have to do.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> I think that is already the case in some cases, but more services should be declared essential services with rights to strike taken away. But some mechanism would be required to ensure there was a balanced and fair way for unions to negotiate on an equal footing. If a mediator doesn't work after a certain period of time after end of contract period, then 'baseball' type arbitration tends to be most workable solution.


I don't know about other provinces but it is definitely so in Quebec. There's a law about it and a whole bunch of services (eg. police, firefighters, nurses, etc) have pretty much no right to strike. They usually find other means to apply pressure (eg. police stopped issuing speeding tickets at some point, they spent years not wearing their uniform, the fire trucks were plastered with stickers, etc).

Personally, I would apply this to more of the public sector. The problem with unions in the public sector is that there's only one employer and little balance to keep the demands in check. With a private business, the workers and their union always need to consider that if they make ridiculous demands which make the business unprofitable then it will simply close at some point. And the business needs to consider that it's not making any money on days the workers strike. There's none of that in the public sector. It makes fair negociation very difficult to achieve in my opinion.


> Each party presents their best position and arbitration picks one or the other.


Wouldn't this just lead to extreme demands, knowing that they'll get more over the long term? I find that it's already the case that initial demands are completely unreasonable because both parties know full well they're not getting that. It's very difficult to come up with a fair system where there is no natural balance.


----------



## undersc0re (Oct 7, 2017)

The railways vs union is a game and the company is always picking apart the contracts if they are not completely black and white, the unionized employee is required to do it and grieve it even if it seems obvious it is against the contract, the company floods the arbitrator with cases, only so many cases can be heard every month. As for a mediator, that mediator and or arbitrator should be well versed in current railway working conditions, or have access to talk to someone they can trust to make sure the company is not pulling a fast one, something simple can get turned around and it will. 

The news had something about a recording released with a guy saying he put his rest notice for 10 hours, it is in the contract, but is told to take the train to some point anyways. Well I am sure every single day railway workers are doing it and grieving it every day, that is just the rest and 10 hour issue. Company stance...we don't care if you are tired this trip, we don't care you put your in 10 hour notice as per your contract 5 hours ago...you do it and grieve it later...but you better bring that train to its destination. Refuse and you will be brought it for an investigation and held out with no pay, could be fired for refusing duty, could be years before an arbitrator can hear your case if the company has plugged the system with grievances, this in turn forces the union to put lesser important grievances in...company is laughing!!! This is the same with contract talks, the company asks for the world in hopes of getting binding arbitration and legislation back to work, arbitrator gives the company half of what they ask, easy win!

I am all for cn shares to split and skyrocket over the next 15 years...but I want my kids to have a normal working career without corporations and politics in complete control of what is safe and what is ok for your average working person. obviously in this case there was over 99% vote in favor of a strike...obviously there were serious issues that HAD to be addressed and it seemed to be overworked employees as well as safety issues. They are not robots showing up fully rested for the 12 hour shift up and back, especially when they have no idea when they are going to work or going back home.

I sure don't want 2 trains doing a head on in my neighbourhood with crude, chlorine, and propane on them!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Freight trains can now extend 3 miles long and pull 200 cars. It isn't a scenario where I would want the operators anything but fully awake and alert.


----------



## undersc0re (Oct 7, 2017)

Yes, 3 miles long! I heard the same thing, I could not imagine walking all the way back and then back to the locomotive through snow or that lop sided rough rock at night, but I am sure they are well prepared and rested for that stuff. 3 miles long...I guess that is why train crossings seem to be blocked around my neighbourhood more the last 5 years...I guess it is better than the alternative, more tired truck drivers on the road!! We have enough aweful semi truck drivers these days around us, don't need more!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Semi-trailer drivers have to keep log books for inspections to make sure they are getting their rest. Maybe the government needs to implement a similar policy for the railroad.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

off.by.10 said:


> Wouldn't this just lead to extreme demands, knowing that they'll get more over the long term? I find that it's already the case that initial demands are completely unreasonable because both parties know full well they're not getting that. It's very difficult to come up with a fair system where there is no natural balance.


Baseball arbitration does just the opposite. Both sides know the arbitrar will pick the most reasonable offer of the two, so that encourages both sides to converge rather than diverge. This type of arbitration has been proven over and over again through the decades. Corporations often sign up to this on contractual commitments with sovereign governments with the International arbitration tribunal in Den Haag (The Hague), and in contracts with other International corporations.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> Baseball arbitration does just the opposite. Both sides know the arbitrar will pick the most reasonable offer of the two, so that encourages both sides to converge rather than diverge.


Ah, that makes a lot more sense. I had understood it as picking one of the two offers at random or something similar.

Do you know if this is actually used on a more local scale? With unions involved?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

off.by.10 said:


> Ah, that makes a lot more sense. I had understood it as picking one of the two offers at random or something similar.
> 
> Do you know if this is actually used on a more local scale? With unions involved?


Yes, I recall such instances but I couldn't tell you which ones and when without looking up examples. I would assume a number of them in essential services and might first involve legislation to get the parties back to work, followed by a defined arbitration process over a set period of time. The process is also called "final offer" arbitration, or "either/or" arbitration and those terms may be better known to the public.


----------

