• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Packer May Sue Inspectors

Help Support Ranchers.net:

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Packer May Sue Inspectors


10/27 09:26


-Inspectors Claim Safety Concerns, But Could Be Sympathetic to Strikers

WINNIPEG (Dow Jones) -- Lakeside Packers are preparing to take legal action against the federal meat inspectors who are refusing to cross the picket line at the Brooks, Alberta, beef slaughterhouse, according to a company release.

Workers represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 401 have been on strike at the plant for more than 2 weeks, although about 1,000 employees have crossed the picket lines. While Lakeside was trying to see some production with those employees willing to work, the federal meat inspectors, represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, have refused to enter the plant since Monday.

The UFCW, Local 401 and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will also likely be in the suit, said the Lakeside statement.

"The more than 30 inspectors and veterinarians who work at the plant crossed the line without incident during the first week of the strike, but have declined to do so this week, reportedly because of the safety concerns of a few inspectors. However, we're not aware of any picket line incidents involving CFIA inspectors," said the release.

"We question whether the unionized inspectors' alleged safety concerns are genuine. Over 1,000 of Lakeside's team members have been safely crossing the picket line. We believe there's evidence that a few unionized inspectors are expressing support for the UFCW Local 401 by staying away from the plant to keep it from operating. We would rather not have to file suit, however, we believe the inspectors' actions are unlawful," said the release.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has reportedly told the inspectors they will provide them with safe access to the plant, according to the release. The company also offered to bus the inspectors; however, CFIA hasn't accepted this offer.

"Our suit will seek damages. Those responsible for these costly delays should be held accountable for their actions, including covering the costs associated with these delays. These inspectors have a legal obligation to do their job and are not part of this dispute," said the release.

The Lakeside workers had been set to strike in mid-July before the province stepped in and imposed a disputes inquiry board. The one-man panel came up with a tentative settlement which was accepted by the workers, but rejected by the company. Tyson (TSN) came back with a revised offer, which was rejected by the union, setting up the current strike action which started Oct. 12.

The fear of violence in the town has caused the RCMP to call in extra officers from other detachments. Criminal charges have already been laid against people on both sides in the dispute.

Lakeside Packers has a daily slaughter capacity of 3,800 cattle, which was slated to increase to 4,700 head this fall. Tyson has said it will send cattle to its U.S. facilities if it is unable to process them at Lakeside.

(SK)
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
HAY MAKER said:
Packer May Sue Inspectors


10/27 09:26


-Inspectors Claim Safety Concerns, But Could Be Sympathetic to Strikers

WINNIPEG (Dow Jones) -- Lakeside Packers are preparing to take legal action against the federal meat inspectors who are refusing to cross the picket line at the Brooks, Alberta, beef slaughterhouse, according to a company release.

Workers represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 401 have been on strike at the plant for more than 2 weeks, although about 1,000 employees have crossed the picket lines. While Lakeside was trying to see some production with those employees willing to work, the federal meat inspectors, represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, have refused to enter the plant since Monday.

The UFCW, Local 401 and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will also likely be in the suit, said the Lakeside statement.

"The more than 30 inspectors and veterinarians who work at the plant crossed the line without incident during the first week of the strike, but have declined to do so this week, reportedly because of the safety concerns of a few inspectors. However, we're not aware of any picket line incidents involving CFIA inspectors," said the release.

"We question whether the unionized inspectors' alleged safety concerns are genuine. Over 1,000 of Lakeside's team members have been safely crossing the picket line. We believe there's evidence that a few unionized inspectors are expressing support for the UFCW Local 401 by staying away from the plant to keep it from operating. We would rather not have to file suit, however, we believe the inspectors' actions are unlawful," said the release.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has reportedly told the inspectors they will provide them with safe access to the plant, according to the release. The company also offered to bus the inspectors; however, CFIA hasn't accepted this offer.

"Our suit will seek damages. Those responsible for these costly delays should be held accountable for their actions, including covering the costs associated with these delays. These inspectors have a legal obligation to do their job and are not part of this dispute," said the release.

The Lakeside workers had been set to strike in mid-July before the province stepped in and imposed a disputes inquiry board. The one-man panel came up with a tentative settlement which was accepted by the workers, but rejected by the company. Tyson (TSN) came back with a revised offer, which was rejected by the union, setting up the current strike action which started Oct. 12.

The fear of violence in the town has caused the RCMP to call in extra officers from other detachments. Criminal charges have already been laid against people on both sides in the dispute.

Lakeside Packers has a daily slaughter capacity of 3,800 cattle, which was slated to increase to 4,700 head this fall. Tyson has said it will send cattle to its U.S. facilities if it is unable to process them at Lakeside.

(SK)

Maybe Tyson should sue themselves for reducing wages and not bargaining in good faith. To put people at risk because they stir the pot too much is no reason to sue. Tyson has to pay its lawyers for doing something, I guess. Agman, do you have the figures on how much the company pays its lawyers to get its way?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
So which do you want Kindergarten, higher wages for Tyson workers or higher cattle prices. You do realize the two are antagonistic to eachother don't you? YOU DON'T? IMAGINE THAT!


~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Do you mean that every time a cost is occured by the packers, it comes out of the producers pocket SH? Gee, I sure hope their taxes don't go up, or the fuel costs don't rise any more. That would mean that eventually the packers could legally take our cattle for nothing and we would have to sit back and watch. But SH would be RIGHT. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Are you really so naive as to think that added expenses SPREAD UNIVERSALLY ACROSS THE PACKING INDUSTRY would not result in lower cattle prices?

GOSH, LET'S GET IN THE PACKING INDUSTRY AND LOSE MONEY WOOHOO!


~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Packer Bwamer said
Do you mean that every time a cost is occured by the packers, it comes out of the producers pocket SH? Gee, I sure hope their taxes don't go up, or the fuel costs don't rise any more. That would mean that eventually the packers could legally take our cattle for nothing and we would have to sit back and watch. But SH would be RIGHT.

Packer Super Hero said
Are you really so naive as to think that added expenses SPREAD UNIVERSALLY ACROSS THE PACKING INDUSTRY would not result in lower cattle prices?

GOSH, LET'S GET IN THE PACKING INDUSTRY AND LOSE MONEY WOOHOO!
~SH~


Simply trying to see it your way SH.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
So which do you want Kindergarten, higher wages for Tyson workers or higher cattle prices. You do realize the two are antagonistic to eachother don't you? YOU DON'T? IMAGINE THAT!


~SH~

Do you realize that wages for you are antagonistic to lower taxes? IMAGINE THAT!
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
~SH~ said:
Are you really so naive as to think that added expenses SPREAD UNIVERSALLY ACROSS THE PACKING INDUSTRY would not result in lower cattle prices?

GOSH, LET'S GET IN THE PACKING INDUSTRY AND LOSE MONEY WOOHOO!


~SH~

So let's see. By what you're saying. The only way a packer can increase his profits is to pay less for cattle? Sounds like a real good reason to figure every angle to decrease the price for live cattle, don't it?

OK, now that we have established a "MOTIVE" (in which every crime has), to add to the evidence portrayed to the Pickett jury, we have every element of Tyson almost committing the "perfect crime", with the help of a few judges.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
I say we put SH on the stand the next time Rcalf goes to trial. His truth and proof might just change the outcome. :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandparasite: "Do you realize that wages for you are antagonistic to lower taxes? IMAGINE THAT!"

DIVERSION!


Mike: "The only way a packer can increase his profits is to pay less for cattle? Sounds like a real good reason to figure every angle to decrease the price for live cattle, don't it?"

The only problem with that simple logic is that Tyson has to get the cattle bought against what Excel, Swift, USPB, and Smithfield are willing to pay along with many level two packers.

Kinda blows your ridiculous theory of being able to freely drop your price for fat cattle doesn't it?

USE YOUR HEAD MIKE! Don't join the idiots here. You're smarter than that.


~SH~
 

greg

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
1,064
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Uhhhh If the inspecters are unionised they shouldn't be crossin the picket lines anyway!!!! Just makin a point,not to make this into a big union discussion!
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Packer Super Hero said
The only problem with that simple logic is that Tyson has to get the cattle bought against what Excel, Swift, USPB, and Smithfield are willing to pay along with many level two packers.

Kinda blows your ridiculous theory of being able to freely drop your price for fat cattle doesn't it?


Good try Super Hero


Packer Sper Hero also wrote
Are you really so naive as to think that added expenses SPREAD UNIVERSALLY ACROSS THE PACKING INDUSTRY would not result in lower cattle prices?
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Did you think you had a point SH. I was just reading your posts. Or are you going to go with the Randy has no comprehension excuse again.

You talked of taking money from the producer when costs increased to the packer.

Then added the universal across the industry bit.

Then you tried to spin out of it by talking about competition, which wasn't on the menu when you first spewed.


Do costs added at the producer level come out of the producers pocket or not SH? Or do you want to add a bit more to divert from your original STATEMENT.

Packer Super Hero said -
So which do you want Kindergarten, higher wages for Tyson workers or higher cattle prices. You do realize the two are antagonistic to each other don't you?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RK: "You talked of taking money from the producer when costs increased to the packer."

I stated as fact that costs added to the packing industry, such as higher wages, will result in lower prices paid for cattle if those added costs are spread universally across the industry to all packing companies. You will not refute that statement. If some packers increased their wages while others didn't, the ones who didn't would be able to pay more for cattle than the ones who did.

Pretty simple economics. I figured even you could understand this but perhaps I overestimated your comprehensive skills.


RK: "Then you tried to spin out of it by talking about competition, which wasn't on the menu when you first spewed."

I never spun out of nothing. If you could contradict anything I have stated with facts to the contrary you would. Because you can't, you don't. Instead you intentionally misinterpret what I stated. True to your deceptive ways.


RK: "Do costs added at the producer level come out of the producers pocket or not SH?"

Of course the costs added at the PRODUCER level come from the PRODUCER. Who else would pay for the PRODUCER'S costs? DUH!


RK: "Or do you want to add a bit more to divert from your original STATEMENT."

I've never diverted from anything. If labor costs are added universally to all packers, then those added costs will come out of the price paid for fat cattle. I get so tired of explaining such elementary procedures. If you need this explained to you perhaps you should go back to school or didn't you ever attend?


~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
You love it when I mis type a word don't you Super Hero.
Quote:
RK: "Do costs added at the producer level come out of the producers pocket or not SH?"

True to your deceptive ways as you say.

I knew you would come back with interpretation or comprehension. Your typical way of wigling out of a spot you have gotten yourself into.

Go super hero go, you must be winning in your own mind,,,,, now back to trapping gophers.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
rkaiser said:
You love it when I mis type a word don't you Super Hero.
Quote:
RK: "Do costs added at the producer level come out of the producers pocket or not SH?"

True to your deceptive ways as you say.

I knew you would come back with interpretation or comprehension. Your typical way of wigling out of a spot you have gotten yourself into.

Go super hero go, you must be winning in your own mind,,,,, now back to trapping gophers.

What spot Randy where do you think the extra expenses at feeder, packer or retailer levels will come from, when meat counter prices are already at a level that consumers are switching over to the beef industries real competition Chicken and Pork. Think about it, if the consumer will not pay any more, the extra expense will go back down the supply chain and guess who the last one on that chain is Randy. Can you say PRODUCER. :roll:
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Do you like that Tam. Are you proud of being right about the producer taking the hit every time cost is added to the packer, like SH has has or maybe hasn't said. Which is it TamSH.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
To be quite honest, Tam, the cattle industry should be just as interested in the PSA being enforced in the pork and poultry markets also. If Tyson can push those farmer's incomes down with frauds outlawed in the PSA, then they have an advantage over beef. It is happening in the industry right now and you haven't spoken out against it yet. It is helping them reduce the costs of these commodities to themselves at the expense of the beef industry.
 

Latest posts

Top