#op 594 | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

disneydeb1928 · 4 years ago

Text

One Piece Theories: The Truth of the D. Clan

- The Void Century Theories, Part 3

This is the third part of my Void Century Theories Series. This one is a long one (I apologize).

The D. Clan

So, first I think we should review, what exactly has been mentioned, in canon, on this topic:

1) It is first brought up by Kureha, on Drum Island, when she revealed that the true name of the late Pirate King was “Gol D. Roger” and told Dolton that Chopper had joined up with a very “dangerous man” (Ch. 154)

After stating Chopper has joined up with a “dangerous man”, she then smiles and says, “D’s will is still alive?”

2) In chapter 594, which takes place after Marineford, the Gorosei are discussing the possible connection between Rayleigh and Luffy when one of them says, “The ‘D.’s are always the troublemakers… especially Portgas… it seems his name has been a little too visible lately.”

3) Law actually talks about the D. Clan twice. The first time, is right before the timeskip, in chapter 729. After leaving Amazon Lily with Luffy in Rayleigh’s care he says “Still, I wonder what the Dark King’s [Rayleigh] is up to… the ‘D.’ will always bring a storm without fail… heheh…”. Later, during the Dressrosa arc, Doflamingo questions Law about why he would trust the Straw Hat Pirates as much as he does. Law replies “Because I know the ‘D.’ will blow up a storm again!”. However, both of these statements are merely echoing what Rosinante told him as a child.

Rosinante refers to where “I come from”, which must be referring to Mary Goise, the home of the Celestial Dragons. He says that will someone “with the name of ‘D.’ begins to make a name for themselves in the world… all the elders all groan and mutter… that ‘D.’ will surely bring with them another storm…”. We know that this is true based off the comments the Gorosei made (see above). He also says that it is a name that people have “secretly” been inheriting throughout history. This is highlighted by the fact that, just a chapter prior, when Law revealed his true name to Baby 5, he said “the ‘D.’ is a secret’ (Ch. 763). Rosinante then states that, in Mary Goise, the “’Family of D.’” is know as “God’s Natural Enemy”. Of course, many have taken this to mean ‘the Celestial Dragons natural enemy’ since the Celestial Dragons see themselves as gods.

When Law demands to know if that makes him a monster, Rosinante admits that “no one knows the actual truth”. However, we know that’s not true. This sentence is important because of a connection it has to the conversation between Law and Sengoku in Episode 743. Sengoku says,

“At least, I know Rosinante had no idea [about the meaning of that ‘D’]. So that wasn’t the reason he saved you.”

While it was a beautiful moment, it should be noted that Sengoku seems to be implying that had Rosinante have known about the true meaning behind the ‘D.’, it might have played a role in why he saved Law (even though we all know Rosinante was a big softy). Sengoku almost seems relieved to hear Rosinante didn’t know the truth. Then, he thinks,

“So he is one, too. The people with the name “D.” always lead a checkered life.”

The dictionary defines ‘checkered’ as: marked by periods of varied fortune or discreditable incidents. It at least implies that Sengoku knows something about the D. Clan.

Now, let’s review the people who appear to know something about the ‘D.’ (at least part of it) and the implications that could have:

1.) Dr. Kureha – (See Explanation Above)

Implications: Kureha aas born on September 8th, 1383. To put this into perspective, that makes her older than every known ‘D.’-bearer we’ve been introduced to in the story so far. In fact, that makes her 141 years old. As mentioned before, she is one of the people who knows Gold Roger’s real name. We know that Roger began to complain about the papers calling him that when he met with Whitebeard (around August) in 1500, so it is very plausible that she simply remembers what he used to be called before the propaganda began. However, her last comment, “D’s will is still alive?” is something of interest.

Grammatically, structuring the sentence as “D’s will” would give the same meaning as “Will of D.”. Both are describing a possessive condition. So we know that she is specifically referring to the Will of D. in this sentence. When she says this, she is smiling, implying that she is pleased with this fact. My question is, why would she have reason to believe that it wasn’t alive. I understand that some families with the ‘D.’ in their name have gone about hiding it, but there is still Monkey D. Garp, who is very public with his name. It’s possible that she’s been living a secluded life for a long time, but if she knew about Roger how had she not known of Garp? Also, I would stipulate, that her reaction makes me believe that there is an emotional connection to the “Will of D.”. It is absolutely possible, that her sentiment could more general, in that she’s happy to see that the World Government wasn’t able to extinguish another token of the past. Or it could imply something else. I think a lot of people wouldn’t be surprised if Kureha had met Roger in the past. He was a sick man and she was a genius doctor, capable of amazing advances in medicine. I think it is also possible that she knew others bearing that initial.

2.) Roger and some of the Roger Pirates – (As mentioned during my discussion on Joy Boy’s treasure, they discovered the true meaning at Laugh Tale)

Implications: While Roger appeared put out by the idea that the newspaper was covering up his name, he didn’t seem too beat up about it. In fact, we honestly can’t garner much from Roger’s reactions to anything. He, much like Luffy, didn’t seem to let things bother him.

However, I would like to take a look at his last words before his execution. There are two main versions I have seen floating around, but I am sure, due to translations, that there are many more. They are:

· “Inherited will, the swelling of the changing times, and the dreams of people. These are things that cannot be stopped. As long as people seek the answer to freedom, these will never cease to be!”

· “Inherited Will, The Destiny of the Age, The Dreams of its People. As long as people continue to pursue the meaning of Freedom, these things will never cease!”

Of course, the first person who springs to mind when I read this, is Luffy, who talks about freedom being a large reason in why he wanted to become a pirate. What I believe Roger is saying, is that as long as people are not content with oppression, and instead chose freedom (which can taken many forms), then people’s dreams and will (Joy Boy’s, Roger’s, Ace’s) can never fully be extinguished (which parallels to what Whitebeard said during Marineford).

Now, freedom mean many things, to different people. Luffy sees freedom as becoming a pirate; Zoro sees it as becoming the world’s greatest swordsman; Koby sees it as becoming a Marine. If you notice, despite having a dislike at the idea of becoming a Marine, Luffy never does anything but encourage Koby (in his own way). Because ‘freedom’ in this sense, is more about following your ambitions – your heart’s desires – reaching for the stars.

3.) Whitebeard – Roger informs Whitebeard the true meaning of the “D.” during their last meeting before turning himself in. In fact, Whitebeard has enough understanding on the subject that he can confidently say that Blackbeard is not the man that Roger is waiting for [to find the One Piece]

Implications: After Roger complains about his name change, WB asked him this,

“Now and then I come across some people with the name “D.”. Even in my own crew, there’s Teach. Just what is ‘D.’?”

So, Whitebeard is admitting that “now and then” he comes across ‘D.’-bearers. He doesn’t specify how often or even how many bearers he’s come across during his time (at this point WB is 50). However, we know that by 1500, the only ‘D.’-bearers that we know (currently) existed were:

· Jaguar D. Saul (born March 6, 1397)

· Monkey D. Garp (born May 2, 1446)

· Rocks D. Xebec

· Gol D. Roger (born December 31, 1447)

· Monkey D. Dragon (born 1469)

· Portrgas D. Rouge

· Marshall D. Teach (born August 3, 1484)

We know that Whitebeard was a part of a infamous pirate crew known as the Rocks Pirates and that his captain, Rocks D. Xebec was a ‘D.’-bearer. Now, we have no idea what went down during the crew before they separated – or even when they separated. We don’t even know if the entire crew participated in the God’s Valley Incident. But what we do know, is that the Rocks Pirates were involved in a lot of the taboo subjects of the world. I go into this a lot deeper in one of my previous theories specifically on the Rocks Pirates, but it is very telling that two of the previous crew members end up with a Road Poneglyph. We also know that he is including Roger in his statement, but I also think it is likely he knows Garp as well. I think it is obvious that we have not discovered all of the current or past ‘D.’-bearers, so all we can do, beyond this list, is speculate.

Whatever it was that Roger ended up telling him, Whitebeard appears to keep to himself for the next 24 years. Not that I’m surprised, that man really didn’t care about pursuing any power other then keeping his family safe. However, at Marineford, he says,

“It’s not you [Blackbeard]… The man Roger is waiting for… is definitely not you, Teach. There are those who inherited Roger’s will… and one day, someone will appear who will inherit Ace’s will… As long as that ‘bloodline’ survives, their flames will never die… that will has been passed down from long ago…!!!”

4.) The Marines – They seem to have some awareness of the significance – or at least Sengoku does (as shown by his conversation with Law during episode 743)

5.) Doflamingo – After Law makes the comment about blowing the D. clan being able to blow up a “storm”, Doffy becomes enraged. This sees to indicate that he knows what Law is referencing. This wouldn’t be surprising since he knows the truth about the Treasure in Mary Geoise.

Implications: However, it could simply be that he, much like his brother, was reacting to the fear that the Celestial Dragons instilled in their children about the ‘D.’ clan and was angry that Law knew.

6.) Im-Sama – I think it is clear that if anyone in this story holds all the answers, it’s Im-Sama. They are clearly deeply rooted in the one piece mythology

7.) The Gorosei – Being second to Im-Sama and who the rest of the world view as the most powerful group in the world, it can be concluded that they, at least, know what Im wants them to know on the subject

Commonalities Between “D.”-bearers: All of the members who have passed, have all died with a smile on their face, in what appears to be, acceptance of their fate. This is, of course, with the exception of Teach, who feared death during Marineford.

46 notes · View notes

dailyunsolvedmysteries · 4 years ago

Photo

The weird case of Alan Jeal

The mysterious death of Alan Jeal in 2014 made headlines across the UK. The 64-year-old was found near-naked on Perranporth beach, Cornwall with just a sock and headphones stuffed in his mouth, having suffered significant yet unexplained injuries to his chest, torso, spine, head and brain.

His movements on the afternoon of Monday, February 24, 2014 made the case even stranger;

At 8.30am Mr Jeal switched on his desktop computer.

At 11.52am he was captured on CCTV walking past Bridge Tools on Gonvena Hill in Wadebridge, having left his home at St Giles House farther up the road.

He was then seen on camera 18 minutes later withdrawing £100 in cash from the Barclays cash machine on Molesworth Street before entering the nearby Co-Op, where he spent £2.40 on a box of plasters and a newspaper

Mr Jeal then returned home, where he carried out an internet search on his computer on bus routes from Wadebridge to Truro, Newquay to Truro and Wadebridge to Camelford.

At 12.50pm raised voices were heard from the flat.

At 4.41pm Mr Jeal shut down his computer, which was out of character with the rest of his computer activity in 2014.

Just four minutes later he was again spotted on CCTV outside Bridge Tools heading into the centre of Wadebridge, this time wearing a light-blue raincoat which has never been recovered, and carrying a rucksack on his back.

He was wearing different clothes to those he was seen in earlier in the day, which was also out of a character for a man who took little interest in his appearance.

It is believed Mr Jeal then caught the number 594 Western Greyhound bus from Wadebridge to Truro, where he arrived at 6.14pm. He spent the next 30 minutes wandering around Truro city centre on his own, with CCTV cameras capturing him walking towards the public toilets at The Leats.

At 6.50pm he caught another bus which arrived at Newquay at 8.16pm. He was again spotted on CCTV walking around the town centre, along Bank Street towards Marcus Hill and up East Street.

After returning to Newquay bus station he caught the 9.15pm service to Perranporth. At 10.27pm Mr Jeal was seen for the final time on CCTV walking along Beach Road in Perranporth, close to the spot where his body was found. It was the last known sighting of Mr Jeal of any kind.

A navy Regatta jacket was found near his body. Inside the jacket pocket was Mr Jeal’s wallet containing a photograph of himself as a two-year-old boy and £95 in cash. A wet £10 note was found in the other pocket. A blue Quiksilver rucksack and woolly hat were also found on the beach nearby. The rucksack was likely to have been Mr Jeal’s, as it was established by police that it was purchased from a surf shop in his hometown of Wadebridge. The rucksack was largely empty apart from loose plasters, a pen and oddly, a bag full of dog faeces. Mr Jeal did not own a dog. The navy jacket was not believed to be the same one Mr Jeal was seen wearing on CCTV the previous day, leading police to believe it may have been inside the rucksack. The rest of the clothing he was wearing in the last hours of his life, including a light blue raincoat, was never recovered. Police were also unable to locate some of Mr Jeal’s other belongings, including a Barclays Bank current account card used to withdraw the £100 in cash found in the jacket.

#alan jeal #unsolved mysteries #cold cases #true crime #unsolved #post

52 notes · View notes

dwellordream · 4 years ago

Text

“…Citizenship status was clearly extremely important to the ancients whose communities had it. Greek and Roman writers, for instance, do not generally write that ‘Athens’ or ‘Carthage’ do something (go to war, make peace, etc), but rather that ‘the Athenians’ or ‘the Carthaginians’ do so – the body of citizens acts, not the state. Only citizens (or more correctly, adult citizen-males) were permitted to engage in direct political activity – voting, speaking in the assembly, or holding office – in a Greek polis; at Athens, for a non-citizen to do any of these things (or to pretend to be a citizen) carried the death penalty.

This status was a jealously guarded one. It had other legal privileges; as early as Draco’s homicide law (laid down in 622/1) it is clear that there were legal advantages to Athenian citizenship. After Solon (Archon in 594), Athenian citizens became legally immune to being reduced to slavery; non-citizen foreigners who fell into debt were apparently not so protected (for more on this, see S. Lape, Race and Citizen Identity in the Classical Athenian Democracy (2010), 9ff). Citizenship, for those who had it, was likely the most important communal identity they had – certainly more so than linguistic or ethnic connections (an Athenian was an Athenian first, a Greek a distant second).

So then who got to be a citizen? At Athens, the rules changed a little over time. Solon’s reforms may mark the point at which citizenship became the controlling identity (Lape, op. cit. makes this argument). While Solon himself briefly opened up Athenian citizenship to migrants with useful skills, that door was soon slammed shut (Plut. Sol. 24.2); citizenship was largely limited to children with both a citizen father and a citizen mother (this seems to have been more flexible early on but was codified into law in 451/0 by Pericles). Bastards (the Greek term is nothoi) were barred from the citizenship at least from the reforms of Cleisthenes in 509/8.

This exclusivity was not unique to Athens; recall that Spartiate status worked the same way (albeit covering an even smaller class of people). Likewise, our Latin sources on Carthage – no Carthaginian account of their government (or indeed any Carthaginian literature) survives – suggest that only Carthaginians whose descent could be traced to the founding settlers had full legal rights. Under the reforms of Cleisthenes (509/8), each Athenian, upon coming of age, had their claim to citizenship assessed by the members of their respective deme (a legally defined neighborhood) to determine if they were of Athenian citizen stock on both sides.

It is worth discussing the implication of those rules. The rules of Athenian citizenship imagine the citizen body as a collection of families, recreating itself, generation to generation, with perhaps occasional expulsions, but with minimal new entrants. Citizens only married other citizens because that was the only condition under which they could have valid citizen children. Such a policy creates a legally defined ethnic group that is – again, legally – incapable of incorporating or mixing with other groups. In this sense, Athenian citizenship, like most ancient citizenship, was radically exclusionary. Thousands of people lived permanently in Athens – resident foreigners called metics – with no hope of ever gaining Athenian citizenship, because there were no formal channels to ever do so.

…The number of slaves is an unknown – the two ancient figures cited seem to be impossible on a population-density-basis. Probably the number of slaves equaled or even slightly exceeded the size of the citizen body. The overall size of the population in Attica (the territory of Athens) should be somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000.

…In short, while there were occasional exceptions where the doorway to citizenship in a community might open briefly, in practice the citizen body in a Greek polis was a closed group of families which replaced themselves through the generations but did not admit new arrivals and instead prided themselves on the exclusive value of the status they held. The fact that the citizen body of these poleis couldn’t expand to admit new members or incorporate new communities but had become calcified and frozen would eventually doom the Greeks to lose their independence, since polities of such small size could not compete in the world of great kingdoms and empires that emerged with Philip II and Alexander.”

- Bret Devereaux, “Citizens and Allies.”

#who were the romans #bret devereaux #ancient #history #greek

7 notes · View notes

ask-triple-trouble-threat · 3 years ago

Note

(Annoying Nerd) Hi Reginald Here's some stas of Jamie Moyer. He played over 20 years. Feel free to not look away, it was annoyingly amazing.

Standard PitchingMore Stats Glossary · Hide Partial · Show Minors · SHARE · CSV · PRE · LINK · More Tools

Minors

Game Logs [+]

Splits [+]

HR Log

vs. Batter

Finders [+]

Year Age Tm Lg W L W-L% ERA G GS GF CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP BK WP BF ERA+ WHIP H/9 HR/9 BB/9 SO/9 SO/BB Awards

1986 23 CHC NL 7 4 .636 5.05 16 16 0 1 1 0 87.1 107 52 49 10 42 1 45 3 3 3 395 80 1.706 11.0 1.0 4.3 4.6 1.07

1987 24 CHC NL 12 15 .444 5.10 35 33 1 1 0 0 201.0 210 127 114 28 97 9 147 5 2 11 899 83 1.527 9.4 1.3 4.3 6.6 1.52

1988 25 CHC NL 9 15 .375 3.48 34 30 1 3 1 0 202.0 212 84 78 20 55 7 121 4 0 4 855 105 1.322 9.4 0.9 2.5 5.4 2.20

1989 26 TEX AL 4 9 .308 4.86 15 15 0 1 0 0 76.0 84 51 41 10 33 0 44 2 0 1 337 82 1.539 9.9 1.2 3.9 5.2 1.33

1990 27 TEX AL 2 6 .250 4.66 33 10 6 1 0 0 102.1 115 59 53 6 39 4 58 4 0 1 447 85 1.505 10.1 0.5 3.4 5.1 1.49

1991 28 STL NL 0 5 .000 5.74 8 7 1 0 0 0 31.1 38 21 20 5 16 0 20 1 1 2 142 65 1.723 10.9 1.4 4.6 5.7 1.25

1993 30 BAL AL 12 9 .571 3.43 25 25 0 3 1 0 152.0 154 63 58 11 38 2 90 6 1 1 630 130 1.263 9.1 0.7 2.3 5.3 2.37

1994 31 BAL AL 5 7 .417 4.77 23 23 0 0 0 0 149.0 158 81 79 23 38 3 87 2 0 1 631 105 1.315 9.5 1.4 2.3 5.3 2.29

1995 32 BAL AL 8 6 .571 5.21 27 18 3 0 0 0 115.2 117 70 67 18 30 0 65 3 0 0 483 92 1.271 9.1 1.4 2.3 5.1 2.17

1996 33 TOT AL 13 3 .813 3.98 34 21 1 0 0 0 160.2 177 86 71 23 46 5 79 2 1 3 703 126 1.388 9.9 1.3 2.6 4.4 1.72

1996 33 BOS AL 7 1 .875 4.50 23 10 1 0 0 0 90.0 111 50 45 14 27 2 50 1 1 2 405 113 1.533 11.1 1.4 2.7 5.0 1.85

1996 33 SEA AL 6 2 .750 3.31 11 11 0 0 0 0 70.2 66 36 26 9 19 3 29 1 0 1 298 150 1.203 8.4 1.1 2.4 3.7 1.53

1997 34 SEA AL 17 5 .773 3.86 30 30 0 2 0 0 188.2 187 82 81 21 43 2 113 7 0 3 787 116 1.219 8.9 1.0 2.1 5.4 2.63

1998 35 SEA AL 15 9 .625 3.53 34 34 0 4 3 0 234.1 234 99 92 23 42 2 158 10 1 3 974 131 1.178 9.0 0.9 1.6 6.1 3.76

1999 36 SEA AL 14 8 .636 3.87 32 32 0 4 0 0 228.0 235 108 98 23 48 1 137 9 0 3 945 130 1.241 9.3 0.9 1.9 5.4 2.85 CYA-6

2000 37 SEA AL 13 10 .565 5.49 26 26 0 0 0 0 154.0 173 103 94 22 53 2 98 3 1 4 678 83 1.468 10.1 1.3 3.1 5.7 1.85

2001 38 SEA AL 20 6 .769 3.43 33 33 0 1 0 0 209.2 187 84 80 24 44 4 119 10 0 1 851 122 1.102 8.0 1.0 1.9 5.1 2.70 CYA-4

2002 39 SEA AL 13 8 .619 3.32 34 34 0 4 2 0 230.2 198 89 85 28 50 4 147 9 0 3 931 128 1.075 7.7 1.1 2.0 5.7 2.94

2003 40 SEA AL 21 7 .750 3.27 33 33 0 1 0 0 215.0 199 83 78 19 66 3 129 8 0 0 897 132 1.233 8.3 0.8 2.8 5.4 1.95 AS,CYA-5

2004 41 SEA AL 7 13 .350 5.21 34 33 1 1 0 0 202.0 217 127 117 44 63 3 125 11 0 1 888 87 1.386 9.7 2.0 2.8 5.6 1.98

2005 42 SEA AL 13 7 .650 4.28 32 32 0 1 0 0 200.0 225 99 95 23 52 2 102 8 0 3 868 98 1.385 10.1 1.0 2.3 4.6 1.96

2006 43 TOT MLB 11 14 .440 4.30 33 33 0 2 1 0 211.1 228 110 101 33 51 5 108 5 1 3 894 105 1.320 9.7 1.4 2.2 4.6 2.12

2006 43 SEA AL 6 12 .333 4.39 25 25 0 2 1 0 160.0 179 85 78 25 44 3 82 3 1 3 685 101 1.394 10.1 1.4 2.5 4.6 1.86

2006 43 PHI NL 5 2 .714 4.03 8 8 0 0 0 0 51.1 49 25 23 8 7 2 26 2 0 0 209 117 1.091 8.6 1.4 1.2 4.6 3.71

2007 44 PHI NL 14 12 .538 5.01 33 33 0 1 0 0 199.1 222 118 111 30 66 3 133 5 0 2 867 91 1.445 10.0 1.4 3.0 6.0 2.02

2008 45 PHI NL 16 7 .696 3.71 33 33 0 0 0 0 196.1 199 85 81 20 62 4 123 11 0 3 841 118 1.329 9.1 0.9 2.8 5.6 1.98

2009 46 PHI NL 12 10 .545 4.94 30 25 1 0 0 0 162.0 177 91 89 27 43 1 94 10 1 1 699 85 1.358 9.8 1.5 2.4 5.2 2.19

2010 47 PHI NL 9 9 .500 4.84 19 19 0 2 1 0 111.2 103 64 60 20 20 0 63 6 0 0 460 84 1.101 8.3 1.6 1.6 5.1 3.15

24 Seasons 267 204 .567 4.24 686 628 15 33 10 0 4020.1 4156 2036 1892 *511* 1137 67 2405 144 12 57 17102 104 1.317 9.3 1.1 2.5 5.4 2.12

162 Game Avg. 14 11 .567 4.24 36 32 1 2 1 0 208 215 105 98 26 59 3 124 7 1 3 885 104 1.317 9.3 1.1 2.5 5.4 2.12

Lg W L W-L% ERA G GS GF CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP BK WP BF ERA+ WHIP H/9 HR/9 BB/9 SO/9 SO/BB Awards

SEA (11 yrs) 145 87 .625 3.97 324 323 1 20 6 0 2093.0 2100 995 924 261 524 29 1239 79 3 25 8802 113 1.254 9.0 1.1 2.3 5.3 2.36

PHI (5 yrs) 56 40 .583 4.55 123 118 1 3 1 0 720.2 750 383 364 105 198 10 439 34 1 6 3076 96 1.315 9.4 1.3 2.5 5.5 2.22

CHC (3 yrs) 28 34 .452 4.42 85 79 2 5 2 0 490.1 529 263 241 58 194 17 313 12 5 18 2149 90 1.475 9.7 1.1 3.6 5.7 1.61

BAL (3 yrs) 25 22 .532 4.41 75 66 3 3 1 0 416.2 429 214 204 52 106 5 242 11 1 2 1744 108 1.284 9.3 1.1 2.3 5.2 2.28

TEX (2 yrs) 6 15 .286 4.74 48 25 6 2 0 0 178.1 199 110 94 16 72 4 102 6 0 2 784 84 1.520 10.0 0.8 3.6 5.1 1.42

STL (1 yr) 0 5 .000 5.74 8 7 1 0 0 0 31.1 38 21 20 5 16 0 20 1 1 2 142 65 1.723 10.9 1.4 4.6 5.7 1.25

BOS (1 yr) 7 1 .875 4.50 23 10 1 0 0 0 90.0 111 50 45 14 27 2 50 1 1 2 405 113 1.533 11.1 1.4 2.7 5.0 1.85

AL (16 yrs) AL 183 125 .594 4.10 470 424 11 25 7 0 2778.0 2839 1369 1267 343 729 40 1633 97 5 31 11735 110 1.284 9.2 1.1 2.4 5.3 2.24

NL (9 yrs) NL 84 79 .515 4.53 216 204 4 8 3 0 1242.1 1317 667 625 168 408 27 772 47 7 26 5367 93 1.389 9.5 1.2 3.0 5.6 1.89

Year Age Tm Lg IP GS R Rrep Rdef aLI RAR WAR Salary Awards

1986 23 CHC NL 87.1 16 52 58 -4 1.2 6 0.7 $60,000

1987 24 CHC NL 201.0 33 127 135 -11 1.1 8 0.9 $70,000

1988 25 CHC NL 202.0 30 84 113 -4 1.0 29 3.3 $142,500

1989 26 TEX AL 76.0 15 51 44 0 1.0 -7 -0.8 $205,000

1990 27 TEX AL 102.1 10 59 60 2 .8 1 -0.1 $340,000

1991 28 STL NL 31.1 7 21 16 1 .9 -5 -0.5 $200,000

1993 30 BAL AL 152.0 25 63 91 8 1.0 28 2.7 $200,000

1994 31 BAL AL 149.0 23 81 101 9 1.0 20 1.8 $725,000

1995 32 BAL AL 115.2 18 70 76 4 .9 6 0.4 $1,100,000

1996 33 BOS AL 90.0 10 50 70 -5 .7 20 1.4 $825,000

1996 33 SEA AL 70.2 11 36 49 3 .9 13 1.1 $

1997 34 SEA AL 188.2 30 82 119 1 1.0 37 3.7 $1,700,000

1998 35 SEA AL 234.1 34 99 152 -3 .9 53 5.2 $2,000,000

1999 36 SEA AL 228.0 32 108 171 -9 1.0 63 5.7 $2,300,000 CYA-6

2000 37 SEA AL 154.0 26 103 99 3 .9 -4 -0.4 $6,000,000

2001 38 SEA AL 209.2 33 84 114 15 .9 30 3.0 $6,500,000 CYA-4

2002 39 SEA AL 230.2 34 89 142 1 .9 53 5.3 $6,500,000

2003 40 SEA AL 215.0 33 83 123 9 .9 40 3.9 $6,500,000 AS,CYA-5

2004 41 SEA AL 202.0 33 127 134 1 1.0 7 0.6 $7,000,000

2005 42 SEA AL 200.0 32 99 126 -4 .9 27 2.6 $8,000,000

2006 43 SEA AL 160.0 25 85 102 0 .9 17 1.7 $5,500,000

2006 43 PHI NL 51.1 8 25 34 -1 .9 9 0.9 $

2007 44 PHI NL 199.1 33 118 126 2 1.0 8 0.7 $6,500,000

2008 45 PHI NL 196.1 33 85 115 5 1.0 30 3.1 $6,000,000

2009 46 PHI NL 162.0 25 91 97 0 .9 6 0.5 $6,500,000

2010 47 PHI NL 111.2 19 64 63 1 .8 -1 -0.1 $8,000,000

24 Seasons 4020.1 628 2036 2530 24 .9 494 47.3 $82,867,500

Lg IP GS R Rrep Rdef aLI RAR WAR Salary Awards

SEA (11 yrs) 2093.0 323 995 1331 17 .9 336 32.4 $52,000,000

PHI (5 yrs) 720.2 118 383 435 7 .9 52 5.1 $27,000,000

CHC (3 yrs) 490.1 79 263 306 -19 1.1 43 4.9 $272,500

BAL (3 yrs) 416.2 66 214 268 21 1.0 54 4.9 $2,025,000

TEX (2 yrs) 178.1 25 110 104 2 .9 -6 -0.9 $545,000

STL (1 yr) 31.1 7 21 16 1 .9 -5 -0.5 $200,000

BOS (1 yr) 90.0 10 50 70 -5 .7 20 1.4 $825,000

Postseason PitchingPostseason Gamelog · Glossary · SHARE · CSV · PRE · LINK · More Tools

Year Age Tm Lg Series Rslt Opp W L W-L% ERA G GS GF CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP BK WP BF WHIP H/9 HR/9 BB/9 SO/9 SO/BB

1997 34 SEA AL ALDS L BAL 0 1 .000 5.79 1 1 0 0 0 0 4.2 5 3 3 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 19 1.286 9.6 1.9 1.9 3.9 2.00

2001 38 SEA AL ALDS W CLE 2 0 1.000 1.50 2 2 0 0 0 0 12.0 8 2 2 0 2 0 10 0 0 0 45 0.833 6.0 0.0 1.5 7.5 5.00

2001 38 SEA AL ALCS L NYY 1 0 1.000 2.57 1 1 0 0 0 0 7.0 4 2 2 1 1 0 5 1 0 0 26 0.714 5.1 1.3 1.3 6.4 5.00

2007 44 PHI NL NLDS L COL 0 0 1.50 1 1 0 0 0 0 6.0 5 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 24 1.167 7.5 0.0 3.0 3.0 1.00

2008 45 PHI NL NLDS W MIL 0 1 .000 4.50 1 1 0 0 0 0 4.0 4 2 2 0 3 0 3 0 0 1 18 1.750 9.0 0.0 6.8 6.8 1.00

2008 45 PHI NL NLCS W LAD 0 1 .000 40.50 1 1 0 0 0 0 1.1 6 6 6 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 11 4.500 40.5 6.8 0.0 13.5

2008 45 PHI NL WS W TBR 0 0 4.26 1 1 0 0 0 0 6.1 5 3 3 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 25 0.947 7.1 0.0 1.4 7.1 5.00

4 Seasons (7 Series) 3 3 .500 4.14 8 8 0 0 0 0 41.1 37 19 19 3 10 0 29 2 0 1 168 1.137 8.1 0.7 2.2 6.3 2.90

2 NLDS 0 1 .000 2.70 2 2 0 0 0 0 10.0 9 3 3 0 5 0 5 0 0 1 42 1.400 8.1 0.0 4.5 4.5 1.00

2 ALDS 2 1 .667 2.70 3 3 0 0 0 0 16.2 13 5 5 1 3 0 12 0 0 0 64 0.960 7.0 0.5 1.6 6.5 4.00

1 ALCS 1 0 1.000 2.57 1 1 0 0 0 0 7.0 4 2 2 1 1 0 5 1 0 0 26 0.714 5.1 1.3 1.3 6.4 5.00

1 NLCS 0 1 .000 40.50 1 1 0 0 0 0 1.1 6 6 6 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 11 4.500 40.5 6.8 0.0 13.5

1 WS 0 0 4.26 1 1 0 0 0 0 6.1 5 3 3 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 25 0.947 7.1 0.0 1.4 7.1 5.00

Standard BattingMore Stats Glossary · Hide Partial · Show Minors · SHARE · CSV · PRE · LINK · More Tools

Minors

Game Logs [+]

Splits [+]

HR Log

vs. Pitcher

Finders [+]

Year Age Tm Lg G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB Pos Awards

1986 23 CHC NL 16 30 22 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 .091 .231 .091 .322 -10 2 1 0 4 0 0 1

1987 24 CHC NL 39 75 61 3 14 1 0 0 3 0 0 6 17 .230 .294 .246 .540 44 15 0 0 7 1 0 1

1988 25 CHC NL 34 71 60 4 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 25 .083 .127 .100 .227 -35 6 2 0 8 0 0 1

1989 26 TEX AL 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1990 27 TEX AL 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1991 28 STL NL 8 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 .000 .111 .000 .111 -66 0 0 0 0 0 0 /1

1993 30 BAL AL 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1994 31 BAL AL 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1995 32 BAL AL 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1996 33 TOT AL 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1996 33 BOS AL 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1996 33 SEA AL 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1997 34 SEA AL 30 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .333 .333 .333 .667 77 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

1998 35 SEA AL 34 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 .000 .000 .000 -100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1999 36 SEA AL 32 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 .500 .667 .500 1.167 203 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 CYA-6

2000 37 SEA AL 26 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .000 .000 .000 .000 -100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

2001 38 SEA AL 33 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 .000 .000 .000 -100 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 CYA-4

2002 39 SEA AL 34 5 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 .200 .200 .200 .400 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

2003 40 SEA AL 33 6 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .400 .400 .400 .800 118 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 AS,CYA-5

2004 41 SEA AL 34 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 .500 .500 .500 1.000 166 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

2005 42 SEA AL 32 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 .000 .000 .000 -100 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

2006 43 TOT MLB 33 25 21 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 6 .095 .136 .095 .232 -40 2 0 0 3 0 0 1

2006 43 SEA AL 25 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 .333 .333 .333 .667 76 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

2006 43 PHI NL 8 22 18 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 .056 .105 .056 .161 -58 1 0 0 3 0 0 /1

2007 44 PHI NL 34 83 73 4 9 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 26 .123 .147 .151 .297 -24 11 1 0 8 0 0 1

2008 45 PHI NL 33 70 51 4 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 7 19 .078 .190 .098 .288 -22 5 0 0 12 0 0 1

2009 46 PHI NL 30 59 42 2 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 21 .119 .240 .119 .359 -1 5 1 1 9 1 0 1

2010 47 PHI NL 19 35 26 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 13 .077 .172 .077 .249 -30 2 0 0 6 0 0 1

24 Seasons 691 485 387 23 49 5 0 0 13 0 0 34 142 .127 .198 .140 .338 -9 54 5 1 61 2 0

162 Game Avg. 162 114 91 5 11 1 0 0 3 0 0 8 33 .127 .198 .140 .338 -9 13 1 0 14 0 0

G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB Pos Awards

SEA (11 yrs) 324 31 26 1 7 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 7 .269 .296 .269 .566 52 7 0 0 4 0 0

PHI (5 yrs) 124 269 210 12 21 3 0 0 6 0 0 19 84 .100 .177 .114 .292 -22 24 2 1 38 1 0

CHC (3 yrs) 89 176 143 10 21 2 0 0 4 0 0 13 47 .147 .217 .161 .377 4 23 3 0 19 1 0

BAL (3 yrs) 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TEX (2 yrs) 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

STL (1 yr) 8 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 .000 .111 .000 .111 -66 0 0 0 0 0 0

BOS (1 yr) 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AL (16 yrs) 470 31 26 1 7 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 7 .269 .296 .269 .566 52 7 0 0 4 0 0

NL (9 yrs) 221 454 361 22 42 5 0 0 10 0 0 33 135 .116 .191 .130 .322 -13 47 5 1 57 2 0

Player Value--Batters WAR: 8+ MVP, 5+ A-S, 2+ Strtr, 0-2 Sub, < 0 Repl. · Glossary · SHARE · CSV · PRE · LINK · More Tools

Year Age Tm Lg PA Rbat Rbaser Rroe Rdp Rfield Rpos Rrep RAR WAR oRAR oWAR dWAR Salary Pos Awards

1986 23 CHC NL 30 -3 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0.1 1 0.1 0.0 $60,000 1

1987 24 CHC NL 75 -5 0 0 0 0 8 2 5 0.5 5 0.5 0.0 $70,000 1

1988 25 CHC NL 71 -10 0 0 0 0 6 2 -2 -0.4 -2 -0.2 -0.2 $142,500 1

1991 28 STL NL 9 -2 0 0 0 0 1 0 -1 -0.1 -1 -0.1 0.0 $200,000 /1

1997 34 SEA AL 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 $1,700,000 1

1998 35 SEA AL 2 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -0.1 -1 -0.1 0.0 $2,000,000 1

1999 36 SEA AL 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 1 0.1 0.0 $2,300,000 1 CYA-6

2000 37 SEA AL 2 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -0.1 -1 -0.1 0.0 $6,000,000 1

2001 38 SEA AL 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 $6,500,000 1 CYA-4

2002 39 SEA AL 5 -1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 $6,500,000 1

2003 40 SEA AL 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.1 1 0.1 0.0 $6,500,000 1 AS,CYA-5

2004 41 SEA AL 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 $7,000,000 1

2005 42 SEA AL 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 $8,000,000 1

2006 43 SEA AL 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 $5,500,000 1

2006 43 PHI NL 22 -4 0 0 0 0 2 1 -1 -0.1 -1 -0.1 0.0 $ /1

2007 44 PHI NL 83 -14 0 -1 0 0 9 2 -4 -0.4 -4 -0.4 0.0 $6,500,000 1

2008 45 PHI NL 70 -9 0 0 0 0 6 2 -1 -0.2 -1 -0.1 -0.1 $6,000,000 1

2009 46 PHI NL 59 -6 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 0.1 1 0.1 0.0 $6,500,000 1

2010 47 PHI NL 35 -5 -1 0 0 0 4 1 -1 -0.1 -1 -0.1 0.0 $8,000,000 1

18 Seasons 485 -60 -1 -1 0 0 47 12 -3 -0.6 -3 -0.3 -0.3 $79,472,500

Lg PA Rbat Rbaser Rroe Rdp Rfield Rpos Rrep RAR WAR oRAR oWAR dWAR Salary Pos Awards

SEA (10 yrs) 31 -2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 $52,000,000

PHI (5 yrs) 269 -38 -1 -1 0 0 27 7 -6 -0.7 -6 -0.6 -0.1 $27,000,000

CHC (3 yrs) 176 -18 0 0 0 0 17 5 4 0.2 4 0.4 -0.2 $272,500

STL (1 yr) 9 -2 0 0 0 0 1 0 -1 -0.1 -1 -0.1 0.0 $200,000

Postseason BattingPostseason Gamelog · Glossary · SHARE · CSV · PRE · LINK · More Tools

Year Age Tm Lg Series Opp Rslt G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB

2007 44 PHI NL NLDS COL L 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 .000 .000 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0

2008 45 PHI NL NLDS MIL W 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 .000 .000 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0

2008 45 PHI NL NLCS LAD W 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2008 45 PHI NL WS TBR W 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .000 .000 .000 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 Seasons (4 Series) 4 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .000 .000 .000 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 NLDS 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 .000 .000 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 NLCS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 WS 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .000 .000 .000 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Standard FieldingMore Stats Glossary · Hide Partial · SHARE · CSV · PRE · LINK · More Tools

Year Tm Lg Age Pos G GS CG Inn Ch PO A E DP Fld% Rdrs Rdrs/yr RF/9 RF/G lgFld% lgRF9 lgRFG SB CS CS% PO Awards

1986 CHC NL 23 P 16 16 1 87.1 24 2 22 0 0 1.000 2.47 1.50 .953 1.94 1.94 10 5 33% 2

1987 CHC NL 24 P 35 33 1 201.0 56 15 37 4 3 .929 2.33 1.49 .956 1.91 1.90 25 12 32% 0

1988 CHC NL 25 P 34 30 3 202.0 57 11 45 1 3 .982 2.50 1.65 .954 1.96 1.96 26 14 35% 0

1989 TEX AL 26 P 15 15 1 76.0 19 5 14 0 2 1.000 2.25 1.27 .958 1.87 1.85 6 4 40% 2

1990 TEX AL 27 P 33 10 1 102.1 20 6 14 0 2 1.000 1.76 0.61 .951 1.78 1.76 9 7 44% 4

1991 STL NL 28 P 8 7 0 31.1 5 0 5 0 0 1.000 1.44 0.63 .952 1.87 1.85 8 3 27% 0

1993 BAL AL 30 P 25 25 3 152.0 40 14 25 1 1 .975 2.31 1.56 .952 1.79 1.78 5 6 55% 1

1994 BAL AL 31 P 23 23 0 149.0 29 12 17 0 1 1.000 1.75 1.26 .954 1.72 1.71 7 3 30% 0

1995 BAL AL 32 P 27 18 0 115.2 27 6 21 0 4 1.000 2.10 1.00 .959 1.79 1.77 11 3 21% 2

1996 TOT AL 33 P 34 21 0 160.2 34 6 25 3 2 .912 1.74 0.91 .962 1.77 1.76 16 3 16% 1

1996 BOS AL 33 P 23 10 0 90.0 20 3 16 1 1 .950 1.90 0.83 .960 1.77 1.76 11 1 8% 1

1996 SEA AL 33 P 11 11 0 70.2 14 3 9 2 1 .857 1.53 1.09 .964 1.77 1.76 5 2 29% 0

1997 SEA AL 34 P 30 30 2 188.2 48 14 34 0 1 1.000 2.29 1.60 .953 1.71 1.69 14 6 30% 1

1998 SEA AL 35 P 34 34 4 234.1 48 16 31 1 1 .979 1.81 1.38 .957 1.78 1.76 21 4 16% 1

1999 SEA AL 36 P 32 32 4 228.0 64 15 47 2 9 .969 2.45 1.94 .951 1.69 1.66 9 8 47% 4 CYA-6

2000 SEA AL 37 P 26 26 0 154.0 39 11 27 1 1 .974 2.22 1.46 .955 1.62 1.60 14 3 18% 1

2001 SEA AL 38 P 33 33 1 209.2 44 17 27 0 0 1.000 1.89 1.33 .953 1.75 1.74 12 7 37% 1 CYA-4

2002 SEA AL 39 P 34 34 4 230.2 57 22 34 1 5 .982 2.18 1.65 .956 1.69 1.67 12 6 33% 4

2003 SEA AL 40 P 33 33 1 215.0 51 19 31 1 2 .980 0 0 2.09 1.52 .956 1.73 1.71 11 6 35% 4 AS,CYA-5

2004 SEA AL 41 P 34 33 1 202.0 38 14 24 0 3 1.000 3 3 1.69 1.12 .945 1.66 1.65 9 4 31% 2

2005 SEA AL 42 P 32 32 1 200.0 46 18 28 0 2 1.000 -2 -2 2.07 1.44 .952 1.70 1.68 27 7 21% 4

2006 TOT MLB 43 P 33 33 2 211.1 50 12 36 2 5 .960 4 3 2.04 1.45 .958 1.60 1.58 11 8 42% 5

2006 SEA AL 43 P 25 25 2 160.0 32 8 23 1 4 .969 2 2 1.74 1.24 .958 1.56 1.54 8 7 47% 4

2006 PHI NL 43 P 8 8 0 51.1 18 4 13 1 1 .944 2 8 2.98 2.13 .958 1.72 1.71 3 1 25% 1

2007 PHI NL 44 P 33 33 1 199.1 47 14 32 1 0 .979 4 4 2.08 1.39 .964 1.68 1.67 9 6 40% 3

2008 PHI NL 45 P 33 33 0 196.1 42 18 22 2 1 .952 -1 -1 1.83 1.21 .959 1.73 1.72 13 6 32% 3

2009 PHI NL 46 P 30 25 0 162.0 27 7 19 1 0 .963 -2 -2 1.44 0.87 .954 1.72 1.70 14 5 26% 4

2010 PHI NL 47 P 19 19 2 111.2 19 2 16 1 0 .947 -3 -5 1.45 0.95 .954 1.73 1.72 12 1 8% 0

24 Seasons P 686 628 33 4020.1 931 276 633 22 48 .976 3 0 2.03 1.33 .955 1.74 1.73 311 137 31% 49

24 Seasons TOT 686 628 33 4020.1 931 276 633 22 48 .976 3 2 2.03 1.33 .955 1.74 1.73 311 137 31% 49 *Can't tell more due to copy paste limit so it's just continue on but with blah blah blah*

Gunman looks up from his desk in confusion.

"What the f--k?" He mumbles, lowering the file he was reading.

#henry stickmin collection #triple trouble threat #ask blog #ttt gunman

4 notes · View notes

allthecanadianpolitics · 5 years ago

Link

Buried in a mountain of documents, we have unearthed a very alarming letter that shows there were credible threats made against Unifor 594 members. The letter frighteningly details a plan to blow up picket lines. It also implied having a list of union member’s home addresses with the threat of personal harm to said picketers. This shocking letter was among the over 900 pages included in a Freedom of Information (FOI) request acquired by Unifor 594 from the Regina Police Service.

Even though several members can attest to being threatened and verbally or physically abused on the picket lines, they had no idea the harm that was being plotted against them from Co-op supporters.

This disturbing undated letter was sent to the Regina Police and the RCMP initially. It was eventually forwarded to the Mayor of Regina on February 18, 2020.

The most horrifying reality is that these threats were never conveyed to members of the local union. These credible threats were never once passed along by the Police who initially received it. The threat laden letter was also forwarded to the office of the Mayor. As an elected official, the Mayor has a sworn duty to inform members of the public, including locked out union members, of dangers to their health and safety. He completely neglected that duty. Let that sink in for a moment.

Tagging: @politicsofcanada @abpoli

#Workers Rights #WTF #Labour rights #Bomb threat #cdnpoli

59 notes · View notes

worklabournewsresearch · 5 years ago

Text

Lost in the lockout: Regina Co-op Refinery

“A significant moment in Canadian labour history is happening now. A bitter dispute has played out at the Co-operatives Ltd. refinery in Regina for the past two months, involving Federated Co-Ops Ltd. (FCL) — the company that runs it — and around 700 locked-out workers. It’s expanded to demonstrations and calls for a boycott of all of co-op’s facilitites across Canada. A physical barricade has been set up around the refinery and hundreds of picketing workers are locking access to the plant.”

“The picket line has garnered national attention, as Unifor, which represents the locked out workers, called on Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe’s government this week to intervene by appointing a mediator with the power to implement a binding settlement. Meanwhile, truckers are calling for an end to the picket, citing an inability to get refined fuel out of the refinery. It’s a complicated situation with huge implications for Canadian labour.”

What’s the source of the tension?

“The contract for workers at the Regina refinery expired on Jan. 31, 2019. In early December, Unifor Local 594 — which represents workers there — voted overwhelmingly to strike over proposed changes to their pensions in contract negotiations. According to the union, the proposed changes would involve workers paying over 11 per cent of their salaries into their pensions. The union protested this change, arguing it was disproportionate to the company’s profits. But before the union could initiate a strike action, management served them with a 48-hour lockout notice on Dec. 4. A day later, union members were officially locked out, and picket lines went up around the refinery.”

How is the union barricading the plant?

“The physical picket line has evolved over the past two months. The union has set up wire fences and vehicles to impede access to the refinery. Oil arrives by pipeline, and while FCL can transport some refined products out of the refinery using trains and pipelines, it relies on trucks largely to supply its network of retail gas stations. The union is blockading the road to disrupt business and put pressure on FCL.”

When and how will this end?

“No matter how the dispute ends, it will set a legal and labour precedent for pension negotiations across sectors going forward. This weekend, Regina police announced they were re-opening an area near the Regina refinery to pedestrian foot traffic to facilitate picketers. ‘Those wishing to set up peaceful, lawful picket lines are permitted to enter the area on foot, and are allowed to carry signs, flags, informational material and any foodstuffs they wish to carry,’ a statement from police said Saturday. ‘They are not permitted to enter with any materials that could be used to construct a barrier.’ The union has called on the premier to appoint a special mediator to end the lockout. Moe has said he will, but only if the union removes its barricades.”

HuffPost, February 11, 2020: “The Regina Co-op Refinery Lockout And What You Need To Know,” by Melanie Woods

CTV News, February 12, 2020: “Unifor fined $250K after second contempt of court ruling in Co-op Refinery labour dispute,” Marc Smith

CTV News, February 10, 2020, “Lost in the lockout: How Regina's Co-op Refinery labour dispute has impacted industries involved,” by Michaela Solomon

Premier Scott Moe positive about appointing special mediator in Co-op Refinery lockout

“On Wednesday [February 12, 2020], the Saskatchewan government announced Vince Ready has been appointed to mediate between both sides to try to bring an end to the lockout, which started Dec. 5. ... ‘It's our hope that this is the first significant step in the negotiations towards an agreement … that will be beneficial for all involved, and an agreement that will bring some peace to what has been an unrestful situation,’ Moe said. ... The mediator will begin his work Feb. 18. Both parties and the mediator will have 20 days to reach a settlement.”

CBC, February 12, 2020: “Premier Scott Moe positive about appointing special mediator in Co-op Refinery lockout,” by David Shield

Regina Leader-Post, February 12, 2020: “Timeline: Unifor/Co-op Refinery Complex lockout”

#union #bargain #lockout #labor relations #mediator #government

1 note · View note