# Unions - Good or Bad



## Cal

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy

I found the study above to be an interesting read. Obviously the author is not a fan of unions.


----------



## andrewf

Heritage is a political think tank, but that said many of his arguments are valid.


----------



## lonewolf

Price fixing weather it be for goods & services or for wages never lasts for long. The market is to strong a force to over come in the long run for even the strongest of unions.

A union shouldnt be about price fixing & protecting those that do not do their job.( which is sadly often the case nowdays)

The company & the union should do thier best to work togeather to make a win/win situation for both parties. For the union this should not involve price fixing & protecting the jobs of the union members that are not worth thier salt. Instead the union should work with the company to be as productive as possible in the safest most practical way & enjoy the spoils in a fair way.


----------



## Saniokca

bad.


----------



## sags

I got a few paragraphs into the article, but found the author arguing with his own statements so much that he was running around in circles.

He wrote......paraphrasing.......unions are unable to secure higher wages because companies can't afford them, but unions do gain wages increases for other workers in companies with a competitive advantage. but unions are causing higher prices for consumers.........but unions are ineffective at raising wages.

Then later he writes about the Big Three automakers........conveniently ignoring the fact those companies were unionized for decades of record profits. He also ignores that non union auto makers pay equivalent wages and benefits as the Big Three, and suffer the same ups and downs as the unionized manufacturers.

He points out bankruptcy among unionized companies, as if non union companies don't experience the same destiny.

A well reasoned, well thought out argument on the subject, is worthwhile, but this article is mindless right wing babble.

According to right wing philosophy, anything that stands in the way of corporate capitalism is evil. 

If only the world didn't allow employees to band together to form a union, if only corporate plans to defile the environment weren't meant with resistance from the "tree huggers", if only the blind, disabled, single parents, poor, elderly, and everyone else dependent on social programs would "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps", if only people would understand the solution to gun violence is more guns, and if only the voters were smart enough to fully understand and appreciate that right wing advocates are so much wiser than everyone else and vote for their chosen candidates........the world would be a much better place.

It must suck to be part of their group right now.......becoming redundant with Americans and people around the world rejecting their philosophy and choosing a different path.

Their voices become ever more shrill.............


----------



## GoldStone

sags said:


> people around the world rejecting their philosophy and choosing a different path.


Talk about bending reality. Check out unionization trend in the OECD countries. The trend is down, not up.

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=20167


----------



## lonewolf

It has been along time since we have had a depression which I think could be a big reason the worth ethic is getting so low.
A shortage of jobs that a depression brings with it I think would help change the work ethic making the unions more willing to work with a company instead of take from a company.


----------



## sags

Corporations are buried under mountains of cash.....but won't deploy it.

Did lower corporate tax rates ensure more corporate spending?

Will lower input costs (wages) ensure more corporate spending?

In a word..............no.

You can't push on a string.

Consumers can only spend what they have (and what they can borrow), and if they don't have money they don't buy products, the company doesn't sell products, the company earns less profits.

If we follow the right wing philosophy of a race to the bottom.............we will create our own depression.


----------



## sags

True that a factory full of robots don't take lunch breaks, call in sick, take maternity leave, or pay union dues.

But they also don't buy anything.

Same holds true for low wage workers.

They don't pay taxes............and they haven't the money to spend.

It is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## andrewf

The Luddites are always on the wrong side of history.

Robots don't buy anything, but the people who own the robots do. So do the people who make the robots, design the robots, maintain the robots, etc.

Remember, automatic looms don't buy anything. Should we really pine for the days when people toiled 12 hours a day, 6 days a week in textile mills, made deaf by the racket of the looms?


----------



## donald

Speaking as a private business owner-Mymain guy cost me 45k a year,i need to bring in about 150k revenue to break even carrying him(im lucky to make 15k a year on him)provide all jobs/comp/ui/ect ect....if i ever had union guys i would go out of business,free-market always is the answer-it always prices ''true''market vaule-like the stock market and how true vaule on a company/stock is priced by the masses.

union employees always ''get" more than they are worth-their output seldom meets their input.mo....Yield and risk on a employee is prob par with canadian bank stocks(div + cap appr)owners dont make that muchin fair market.


----------



## Oldroe

It's funny non union shops charge the same amount for jobs as union shops. Non Union shops under pay workers so who pockets the money.


----------



## sags

Low wage employers make it more difficult for similar employers to pay a decent wage.

Hence it is known as the "race to the bottom".

At some point the lowest wage needed for survival................will still be more than an employer can afford.

What then?

How the situation gets turned around now........is a good question.

It seems that economists and others are starting to pinpoint falling or stagnant wages as a problem............that will create bigger problems in the future...........unless somehow addressed.

Among other things, unions did serve a purpose of transferring wealth. If they are eliminated.............the only other mechanism is direct taxation.

Or the wealth gap continues to grow.


----------



## Oldroe

The owners make huge money running non union shops.

They under pay and when employees get in their important earning years they fire them. 45 years old and looking for work sounds familiar.

And these owners like to talk about the 1 bad employee the 99% that go to work and do a good job never talked about.


----------



## Pennypincher

I think there is a time and place for unions. Dangerous jobs, and civil servants are good candidates for being unionized. I've worked as a unionized employee and as a non. I prefer being unionized.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Pennypincher said:


> Dangerous jobs, and civil servants are good candidates for being unionized.


Why are civil "servants" good candidate for being unionized?
They should absolutely *not* be unionized.
As a tax payer I am outraged at the whole public sector union scam.


----------



## andrewf

They are good candidates because they have maximum ability to generate unearned rents by extorting taxpayers through monopoly on government services.


----------



## Eclectic12

lonewolf said:


> It has been along time since we have had a depression which I think could be a big reason the worth ethic is getting so low...


I don't think so. 

From what I've seen - those with parents who are interested in their kids and are raising them are instilling a good work ethic. The parents that are ignoring their kids and then give them gifts to compensate the kid for being absent are a large part of the problem.

Bottom line is that a depression isn't required, IMO.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

lonewolf said:


> ...A union shouldnt be about price fixing & protecting those that do not do their job.( which is sadly often the case nowdays)...


I agree that the union/management should work together for a win-win.

What's your suggestion for management in a non-union shop that protects those who do not do their job? I've always been amazed at the lengths the managers at the non-union companies I've worked at have gone to try to get an employee to be more productive when a strategic firing or two would have changed the culture.

The justification was that once the employee was beyond probation ... 


> It's too expensive to fire the employee.


More than half the firings I've witnessed were because the non-productive employee stepped on the wrong toes, not the years of not doing their job.


Cheers


----------



## RBull

Eclectic12 said:


> I agree that the union/management should work together for a win-win.
> 
> What's your suggestion for management in a non-union shop that protects those who do not do their job? I've always been amazed at the lengths the managers at the non-union companies I've worked at have gone to try to get an employee to be more productive when a strategic firing or two would have changed the culture.
> 
> The justification was that once the employee was beyond probation ...
> 
> 
> More than half the firings I've witnessed were because the non-productive employee stepped on the wrong toes, not the years of not doing their job.
> 
> 
> Cheers


In my experience this is not often a problem other than with a weak /incompetent manager or business owner. I've fired and seen many fired over the years. However politics is a reality in many union or non union environments. The difference here might be that the non union manager "tries" to get more productivity where in the union shop the manager may just give up on trying. The answer to your question is ultimately bad employees should be replaced. It's just tougher to do with unions and you don't hear about it too often unless in extreme cases, and these seem to make the news when they do.


----------



## sags

Here is an example of a union (the CAW in this case) stepping up to defend Nortel employees.

It appears bond holders, who bought the debt for 20 cents on the dollar, are demanding 100 % return plus interest, while pensioners and others are left with much less.

I don't know if Nortel was even unionized..........or if the CAW represented them.

Maybe Carverman can shed some light...........

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/caw-blames-nortel-bondholders-for-failed-mediation-efforts-1.1129131

Also interesting to note...........the GM salaried management retirees have filed several lawsuits against GM as they get their benefits and pensions cut.

Not having a union to represent you..........certainly can hurt.

http://www.genmo.ca/index.php?bShow=68&cat=3

And it should be noted that while they are treating their loyal "non union" salary employees this way..........GM recorded an all time record profit.


----------



## Pennypincher

Government employees should be unionized because they are bargaining against the law maker which is often a lose lose situation is it not? Unions alleviate this issue. Government workers are not overpaid - but that is a debate for another time as I am rather tired of it.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Pennypincher said:


> Government employees should be unionized because they are bargaining against the law maker which is often a lose lose situation is it not?


Not at all.
In fact, public sector workers have some of the _best_ and _safest_ working conditions.
Lower hours per week, all kinds of compassionate time off, over and above holidays and vacations, 100% health and dental coverage, so on and so forth.
They have one of the best, of not _the_ best, benefits packages in the entire country.

And to clarify, they are not bargaining against some unknown, dark force known as "government" - they are in fact bargaining against the tax-payers (which includes all the private sector, non unionized tax payers, too).
The Canadian "government", representing the Canadian people, is not some mediaeval robber baron or 3rd world coal mine operator - we take care of our workers as amongst the best in the world.

I find unions against us, such as the CUPE, highly offensive, unnecessary, and rent-seeking.


----------



## spirit

I would have to say that I am unionized because I am a teacher and belong to an association. My husband and I do not do much travelling around the world. We prefer to spend our time enjoying the Canadian scenery. Just saying....no politics intended. However, I consider myself fairly well educated and so am posing a question. For those of you who travel a lot around the world.......pick a country where there is very little unionized labor and ask yourself if you would want to live there, do business there and raise a family there. Basically, put your livelihood into that country forever. I am just guessing, but I think the answer is no. As a unionized employee I cannot and will not accept a bribe under any condition. I would not risk my career. I am also not under any pressure to accept a bribe for raising a student's mark because that action is not condoned by my society. It seems to me that countries that do not have a well paid and well educated work force are countries where I would not like to live. We are extremely fortunate here in Canada that our doctors and nurses, our police, our lawyers and judges, our educational system is still largely merit based. Note, all those professions belong to a union or association. They are highly skilled, highly moral, and yes, well paid. The people involved there have used their skills to define their profession based upon a code of behavior called an oath. Some of you may laugh at this notion but the code of conduct I swore to uphold still underpins all the work I do. And that, my friends, will have a cost. And, in my opinion only, I think you all should be very grateful you live in such a country. I would be interested to hear of anyone who left Canada permanetly to live in a country where there are no unions. How is that working for you?


----------



## HaroldCrump

Are you saying that there is no bribery in the Canadian public sector? Seriously?
And are you also saying that the Canadian private sector is rampant with bribery?


----------



## loggedout

andrewf said:


> The Luddites are always on the wrong side of history.
> 
> Robots don't buy anything, but the people who own the robots do. So do the people who make the robots, design the robots, maintain the robots, etc.
> 
> Remember, automatic looms don't buy anything. Should we really pine for the days when people toiled 12 hours a day, 6 days a week in textile mills, made deaf by the racket of the looms?


Anyone who invests should know this. Historic patterns don't necessarily have to repeat. Luddites may have been premature, but not necessarily wrong. Previous economic transformations as the result of technological innovations occurred under a different set of circumstances and conditions. The echnological innovations that drove these transformations were also different. So I would be very weary in predicting the future based on history without taking account of these differences.

On the general topic of unions and whether they are good or bad. It depends. There's no catch-all answer for this question. Depends on your perspective, and the specific conditions we're talking about. They can be good or bad.


----------



## spirit

I am saying, that compared to countries where there are no unions, yes, Canadian public and private sectors do not operate under a system of corruption. I believe that an uncorrupt public sector underpins the rule of law in a country. And unions or associations are a part of that system


----------



## andrewf

When the Luddites have been so repeatedly, disastrously wrong for hundreds of years, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that this time is different. 

And worst case, if having robots/machines/computers do our work for us, resulting in less need for human sweat and toil--if that does end up being a dystopian disaster, can't we just turn them off? What's the risk here?


----------



## fraser

In general I believe that unions are a good thing. Clearly there are good unions and bad ones. I have not belonged to a union or association during my post education work life. And most of those years were spent in management positions.

But I clearly understand if unions did not exist, some workers would be working in unsafe conditions for an unreasonably low hourly wage. Like it or not unions to help to protect the little guy from wealthy employers who can employ skilled lawyers. Keep in mind when union wages go up so do management salaries.


----------



## Pennypincher

HaroldCrump said:


> Not at all.
> In fact, public sector workers have some of the _best_ and _safest_ working conditions.
> Lower hours per week, all kinds of compassionate time off, over and above holidays and vacations, 100% health and dental coverage, so on and so forth.
> They have one of the best, of not _the_ best, benefits packages in the entire country.
> 
> .


Brilliant response. This illustrates why being unionzed is a good thing. Why WOULDN'T you want to be unionized? The government can blame the unions for the cost of wages to they deflect blame from taxpayers for providing a decent place to work with decent wages.

I have never received 100% dental and health coverage in any of my government jobs. Where did you hear that? 80% tops and I had to pay $120/month into it for a family plan. My spouses private sector plan was much better so I declined the government plan. I only received 3 weeks of vacation - same as where I work now in the private sector. 7.75 work day versus 8 hour work day now....


----------



## loggedout

andrewf said:


> When the Luddites have been so repeatedly, disastrously wrong for hundreds of years, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that this time is different.
> 
> And worst case, if having robots/machines/computers do our work for us, resulting in less need for human sweat and toil--if that does end up being a dystopian disaster, can't we just turn them off? What's the risk here?


To be clear, I'm not using this as an argument for, or against unions (in fact I don't think its relevant to that question at all), but your reasoning based on historic evidence is flawed. It's very difficult to predict the impact of new technologies (many not even thought of yet) on something as complex as the economy. To assume that the same or similar things will happen when huge technological leaps occurred based on what happened when we put down our plows and tractors took over is too simplistic.

There's a wonderful book on the topic entitled "The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future" that deals with the topic. It provides a thought experiment on the "worst case" scenario. It has the potential to completely shake the foundations of our current economic system. It doesn't necessarily mean that the future is bleak, just that there could be major changes.

On the topic of what's different this time? One answer that a reviewer on amazon put it more succinctly than I can is:

_



"Machines are fast approaching humans in terms of *mental* labor capacity, not just *physical* labor capacity. In the past as machines took over much of our physical labor, we were then free to turn to more valuable mental labor. But once machines take over much of our mental labor, then what do we turn to for employment?"

Click to expand...

_That's a key difference that IMO throws a wrench into using historic patterns as a predictor.

I'm not anti-technology, I'm an engineer who previously worked in developing industrial automation systems. From my perspective, we're on the brink of artificial intelligence and autonomous machines (software and hardware) that will dramatically alter our world. It will be a paradigm shift like we've never seen before.


----------



## SpIcEz

spirit said:


> I would have to say that I am unionized because I am a teacher and belong to an association. My husband and I do not do much travelling around the world. We prefer to spend our time enjoying the Canadian scenery. Just saying....no politics intended. However, I consider myself fairly well educated and so am posing a question. For those of you who travel a lot around the world.......pick a country where there is very little unionized labor and ask yourself if you would want to live there, do business there and raise a family there. Basically, put your livelihood into that country forever. I am just guessing, but I think the answer is no. As a unionized employee I cannot and will not accept a bribe under any condition. I would not risk my career. I am also not under any pressure to accept a bribe for raising a student's mark because that action is not condoned by my society. It seems to me that countries that do not have a well paid and well educated work force are countries where I would not like to live. We are extremely fortunate here in Canada that our doctors and nurses, our police, our lawyers and judges, our educational system is still largely merit based. Note, all those professions belong to a union or association. They are highly skilled, highly moral, and yes, well paid. The people involved there have used their skills to define their profession based upon a code of behavior called an oath. Some of you may laugh at this notion but the code of conduct I swore to uphold still underpins all the work I do. And that, my friends, will have a cost. And, in my opinion only, I think you all should be very grateful you live in such a country. I would be interested to hear of anyone who left Canada permanetly to live in a country where there are no unions. How is that working for you?


I think you havent been following what has been going on in Quebec. In public sector, the engineers (part of an association), the politicians (swore an oath), the city workers (some unionised) are all corrupt and abusing the system 3-4-5 different ways and we have only touched the tip of the iceberg. The private sector is involved as well, and the Mafia for sure. But nothing about an OATH or Union is SO sacred that it prevents corruption.

We are only more civilised, so our corruption is covert and not overt. Doesn't mean its right though.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Pennypincher said:


> Brilliant response. This illustrates why being unionzed is a good thing. Why WOULDN'T you want to be unionized?


OK, fine, so then we need to legislate that _every_ worker in the country must be part of a union.
There shouldn't be free labor anymore.

What is unacceptable is 20% of the country's labor force ganging up against the other 80%, striking and blackmailing essential services to seek rents for themselves.

The working conditions in our country has nothing to do with unions - it has more to do with our fundamental nature as a _peaceful, democractic, and egalitarian_ society.
Which is why spirit's comparison with other countries is not valid either.

Public sector unions are an insult against the private sector tax payers.


----------



## spirit

Hello Harold. Glad for some honest discussion (; I respect your views and who knows....I might be wrong. My questions still stands... open to anyone. Is there a country anywhere in the world, where there are no unions or associations,(or at least none that are strong) that you and your family would like to live in on a permanent basis? I maintain unions and associations are a part of the fabric of society that believes in the rule of the law. It is not illegal to belong to a union or association. They were a result of some horrific abuses in the private sector and many people gave their lives for them. They will not easily go away.
Let's see, Britain, US, Canada, Germany, Nordic countries, France, Switzerland are some that have a fairly strong union and association system that their citizens belong to. Some more than others. Would I give up my citizenship to go live there if I left Canada? Probably. Now, I do not travel so will need some help here. Would I go live in Brazil, anywhere in central America, Mexico, other European countries, Italy, Greece, Thailand etc. Never in a heartbeat.
My retired neighbor worked in forestry here in Canada his whole life. I remember him once talking about his job and he said they considered themselves stewards of the land. I feel the same way about the lessons I prepare for my students. I want them to be accomplished thinkers not just robots spouting off preplanned dogma. I am preparing our future generation to the best of my ability. That is the mindset of many of my generation that belongs to an association. There is something called the public trust that is still a large component of my belief system.
So, where would you like to live that does not have unions or associations?


----------



## SpIcEz

Unions and associations are not the same thing. They might be related, but those oaths and respect of the law that you mention concerning associations (Doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc...) are not part of the union structure.

So we are talking of 2 different things here. The only thing that is related might be the part about collective bargaining.


_peaceful, democractic, and egalitarian_ countries (as Harold mentioned) are not this way simply because you can find unions in all of those societies.

Simply put, IMO, correlation /= causation.


----------



## Oldroe

Only bad employers get unions.


----------



## HaroldCrump

spirit said:


> My questions still stands... open to anyone. Is there a country anywhere in the world, where there are no unions or associations,(or at least none that are strong) that you and your family would like to live in on a permanent basis?


I live in Canada, not because we have unions, but because this is my country and I love it.

Can I live elsewhere - sure, I can - and have - lived in other countries, although mostly in the Western hemisphere.
Maybe I might go live somewhere else, or retire in another (warmer climate) country - I don't know, I can't say, it's too early.

What I can say, though, is that my choice will not be based on the presence or absence of unions, for Heaven's sake.
My choice will be based on the political stability, relative peace, and a welcoming environment in the prospective country.

Your basic premise is wrong - the presence or absence of unions does not prove anything.
Some very unstable and volatile countries have unions - South Africa, Mexico, India, etc.

Also, you have to consider the historical context behind the rise of unions.
Unions arose as a result of the collapse of the feudal system, and the freeing up of labor.
Labor migrated to the newly emerging industrial towns and cities (mostly in Western Europe), dominated by the manufacturing, iron & steel, garments, and coal mining industries.
The working conditions were pathetic, per our modern standards.
These are some of the reasons why it's hard to find a developed, democratic Western country without unions.

Ironically, one of the _best_ sources on the history and reasons behind the rise of unions is Marx's _Das Capital_, I believe volume III.



> I maintain unions and associations are a part of the fabric of society that believes in the rule of the law. It is not illegal to belong to a union or association.


I'm not saying that.
It is perfectly fine to belong to a union, and it is ok for a group of workers to organize into a union.
The trouble starts with the rent seeking, esp. of public sector unions.

I am totally fine with private sector unions, _as long as_ they don't drive their organizations/employers into bankruptcy and they, in turn, come begging to the govt. (tax-payers) for bailout approx. every 10 years.
The unions then lobby the govt. to pillage the tax coffers and grant those bailouts.
Approx. every 10 - 15 years, like clockwork.
Examples : airlines, auto companies (both here and in the US).



> anywhere in central America, Mexico, other European countries, Italy, Greece, Thailand etc. Never in a heartbeat.


Well, most of those countries have very strong unions - Mexico, Italy, Greece (ha !)
By your logic, you could go live there.
Another country that has very powerful unions - Spain.

They are doing very well - haven't you heard - you should apply for citizenship


----------



## spirit

Thank you Harold. As I said I don't travel much. I did not know that Spain had unions, nor Italy or Greece. There goes my theory.....I have been known to be wrong in the past. I have no quarrel with private sector business whether it is unionized or not. My point is that a strong public sector that is fairly paid will not be succeptable to circumventing the law for personal gain. I have heard that some countries police, doctors etc will accept bribes and they do not care whether they are fired or not. They do not work for their pay, but the illegal and lucrative opportunities that come with that job. I do not want to live in such a country.


----------



## w0nger

WestJet


----------



## GoldStone

spirit said:


> Let's see, Britain, US, Canada, Germany, Nordic countries, France, Switzerland are some that have a fairly strong union and association system that their citizens belong to. Some more than others. Would I give up my citizenship to go live there if I left Canada? Probably. Now, I do not travel so will need some help here. Would I go live in Brazil, anywhere in central America, Mexico, other European countries, Italy, Greece, Thailand etc. Never in a heartbeat.


Hi Spirit,

Please take a look at these numbers.

Membership in the unions, by country:

France: 7.6%
Finland: 70%

Is France 10 times more corrupt than Finland? Is it 10 times less livable?

Switzerland: 17.8%
Sweden: 67.7%

Is Switzerland 3 times more corrupt than Sweden? Is it 3 times less livable?

Germany: 18.5%
Greece: 24%

Is Germany more corrupt than Greece? Is it less livable?

Canada: 28.8%
Italy: 35.1%

Is Canada more corrupt than Italy? Is it less livable?

US: 11.3%
Mexico: 13.2%

Is US more corrupt than Mexico? Is it less livable?

Austria: 18%
Belgium: 52%

Is Austria 3 times more corrupt than Belgium? Is it 3 times less livable?

Source: OECD
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=20167

Your argument doesn't hold any water.


----------



## sharbit

HaroldCrump said:


> Not at all.
> In fact, public sector workers have some of the _best_ and _safest_ working conditions.
> Lower hours per week, all kinds of compassionate time off, over and above holidays and vacations, 100% health and dental coverage, so on and so forth.
> They have one of the best, of not _the_ best, benefits packages in the entire country.
> 
> And to clarify, they are not bargaining against some unknown, dark force known as "government" - they are in fact bargaining against the tax-payers (which includes all the private sector, non unionized tax payers, too).
> The Canadian "government", representing the Canadian people, is not some mediaeval robber baron or 3rd world coal mine operator - we take care of our workers as amongst the best in the world.
> 
> I find unions against us, such as the CUPE, highly offensive, unnecessary, and rent-seeking.


Wouldn't this raise the working conditions of all employees in the economy? Therefore being a good thing because they raise the level of competition for employees? Like, labour is a competitive market and in a lot of ways is a commodity. You can argue however you want that you're special however in the end (input -> output); you're a widget factory.

Put another way; (correct me if im wrong) Back in the 1920's unions lead the revolution of having a "weekend" off. 2 days off instead of 1; instituted by the "Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America" and the odd days a ford. This started in union shops but spread to private.

You're argument is flawed in another way, with Germany being one of the most unionised countries but one of the most successful economicially.


----------



## GoldStone

sharbit said:


> You're argument is flawed in another way, with Germany being one of the most unionised countries but one of the most successful economicially.


Sigh. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, right?

Germany unionization rate: 18.5%

One of the lowest in the OECD.


----------



## sharbit

GoldStone said:


> Sigh. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, right?
> 
> Germany unionization rate: 18.5%
> 
> One of the lowest in the OECD.


Does that really invaidate my point though? 18.5% is a significant number; Whats the magic percent when unions "destory the economy?"


----------



## HaroldCrump

sharbit said:


> Wouldn't this raise the working conditions of all employees in the economy? Therefore being a good thing because they raise the level of competition for employees? Like, labour is a competitive market and in a lot of ways is a commodity.


But that is precisely _it_ - under a unionized system, labor is _not_ a commodity - there is no free market.
It is in fact a feudal system.

A majority unionized labor system is very similar to an oligopoly on the business side - similar concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly

Oligopolistic practices in business, such as price fixing, market sharing, etc. are prevented by legislation dating back to the early 20th century.
Yet, manipulating the labor market, striking, and blackmailing the citizens by freezing up essential services by unions is perfectly legal.



> You can argue however you want that you're special however in the end (input -> output); you're a widget factory.


OK, so if everything is a widget, and there is perfect competition in the labor market, remind me why do we need a union?


----------



## fraser

Do not let Germany's low unionization stats fool you. They have something else very much akin and often more effective and powerful called workers councils. I know of at one multinational that was laying off more people in North America to make up for not doing it in Germany because of the high costs imposed by the workers council movement. 

That 18 percent number is a red herring. in reality, the situation is much different.


----------



## hystat

HaroldCrump said:


> they are in fact bargaining against the tax-payers (which includes all the private sector, non unionized tax payers, too)..


Not all unionized public sector employees are paid by taxes. I'm a college teacher and our program brings in more tuition than the program costs to run (including all salaries). It is tiring to continually hear I am a drain on the taxpayer's wallet when our return to the operating budget is 20 or 30% in the black. I'm paid by the students, not the taxpayer.

Of course, a provincially operated college can't make a profit, so the "excess" funds big bonuses and salaries of the non unionized management 
but the money ("profit in disguise") also funds research, development of new programs and generally supports the development of our workforce and raises the skill level of our workers. 
We produce taxpayers. More people paying taxes = less taxes per person. 

Grads from my program pay somewhere around 50 to 100K in income tax the first 5 years after graduation, and it makes them upwardly mobile and consumers of cars, houses and goods. Some of those people came to us on welfare, e.i or from low wage jobs.


----------



## thebomb

I see this thread is going in a certain direction, however as for the actual question in the title fof the thread "union's good or bad?", let me start by saying I work in HR in the private industry. I have just wasted the last flippen year "arguing" (sorry- I mean 'negotiating') with the union at one of our facilites over the most bullshit claim. Hey - I get its part of my job, but what a waste of time. Unions cover the weakest link (aka the worst employees). Its all a chest puffing exercise in my opinion. I rarely lose my cool but I did yesterday. A waste of my time. Hey-if we screw something up, I will be the first person to raise my hand and say 'hey guys- companies fault- I will take care of it'. There is NEVER a reciprocal on the civil response that I give them. My blood has been boiling over this for the past 2 weeks. Now we are proceeding to arbitration and are gonna spend 15 to 20k on something that we have already agreed to in principle. Hows that for a good use of my time? Brutal. Unions have through the industrial revolution brought on great advances in health and safety and other benefits. Got it. I think their relevance today has shifted greatly from their original intention. Thanks for listening to my rant..... cheaper than a therapy session. :chuncky:


----------



## GoldStone

fraser said:


> Do not let Germany's low unionization stats fool you. They have something else very much akin and often more effective and powerful called workers councils. I know of at one multinational that was laying off more people in North America to make up for not doing it in Germany because of the high costs imposed by the workers council movement.
> 
> That 18 percent number is a red herring. in reality, the situation is much different.


Thanks for pointing this out. I agree that unionization rate alone doesn't tell the whole story. What matters is the balance of power between labour and business. Many different factors affect it.

France is a good example. I was very surprised to see how low their unionization rate is. 7%, one the lowest in the OECD. Turns out their system of collective bargaining is not tied to union membership. More than 90% of non-management French workers are covered by collective bargaining, whether they belong to a union or not.


----------



## sags

No doubt about it.......unions can be very stubborn on details and diligent on protecting every right of their members.........especially those who are the weakest, and sometimes those who may be the least deserving of the representation.

But unions should not decide which members they will represent to the fullest and which they wont.

This is learned behavior.........born of past experience where for every inch they gave..........another foot was demanded.

Look at the Big Three recent history. Negotiate concessions........company comes back for more. Negotiate more concessions........company comes back for more, negotiate more concessions.......company comes back for more.

At then the company moves out production anyways, and all that was accomplished for those workers facing layoffs is that they earned less than they would have when they worked.......because of the concessions they gave up.

Unions don't trust companies anymore.


----------



## none

GoldStone said:


> Thanks for pointing this out. I agree that unionization rate alone doesn't tell the whole story. What matters is the balance of power between labour and business. Many different factors affect it.


This.


----------



## lonewolf

Electric12

What's your suggestion for management in a non-union shop that protects those who do not do their job? 

Iam not in the workforce anymore but when I was working with someone that was not doing thier job. I would tell them thats okay I will get it ( meaning the job) which worked most of the time to get them working. If that never worked I would do their job & tell them to watch how I did it. I never had to take to the 3rd step which would have been to show them how to do the job really slowly & talk to them as if they were a 2 year old.

I always tried to do my job the best I could & help others out so maybe that gave me a little bit of an edge for using the above approach.


----------



## none

I worked in lots of non-union jobs where there are lots of people that don't do their job - I think the mind-set is that it's easier to keep a known quantity that does "enough" but is not so incompetent that it's worth all the hassle to replace them.

Union/non-union -- government/private industry - I've done it all and I've found they all have about the same percentage of lazy incompetent idiots.


----------



## sags

We just can't compete on wages with forced child labor camps in India.......making products for Walmart.

Eliminating unions won't address that problem.

Cancelling free trade deals with countries who are taking advantage of us............will.


----------



## SpIcEz

I work in the electronic security industry. I get to manage project in all kinds of sectors: industrial, commercial, retail, private, government, offices, factories, engineering, mining, etc...

Everytime I have had to work with manual labor union workers, it has been a headache of varying degrees, but the worst are those under the USW union (United Steel Workers) mining industry, Hydro Quebec workers (government utility) and construction workers in northern Quebec.

Here is a list that could be attributed to most if not all of those workers:

- They do not EVER put in an 8 hour day, EVER. If they work 5 hours in a day its a miracle from heaven.
- They will pass the puck whenever they can. They will find any excuse not to do the work.
- They destroy property of, harasse, physicaly assault and intimidate external contract workers doing work on their site, even when they CANNOT do the work, WILL not do the work or dont have the competence/skills or time to do the work. It doesn't matter, if your from outside you need to be squashed like a bug.
- They cost their employer money by not working the hours paid, under performing, stealing (RAMPANT STEALING) of company property, destruction of company property, etc.

The problem is not only are they expensive after they have negotiated salaries way above (IMO) their skills. But in the end, if they at least DID the work, worked the hours, where productive, I think they employers wouldn't even complain.

BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE. 

Now, not all unions are equal, not all unioned workers either. Teachers and law enforcement I believe deserve allot of what they get and in the case of teachers, maybe deserve more as well.

Without eliminating unions completely though, I think a serious overhaul of laws surrounding unions needs to be made.

Just the fact that union thugs can bully you around, or that you have NO CHOICE but to join the union and pay union dues to work somewhere, even if you don't want to be part of the street gang.

I honestly think the Right-to-Work movement in the USA is a step in the right direction.


(p.s. I apologies for the long rant, however, I get my faced rubbed in the worst of the union sector every other week and I work hard, really hard for my money and am proud. Seeing laziness to that extreme always paid for by us (taxpayers, consumers) really irritates me.)


----------



## andrewf

Cancelling free trade deals == union tax on the consumption of Canadians. Prices for goods formerly imported would skyrocket. Regular Canadians would become poorer. Also, the people who decry goods being made in developing countries would rather have the people of those countries starve in abject poverty than to allow them to compete with domestic workers. I think garment makers in Bangladesh need the work a hell of a lot more the over-entitled union workers in Canada.


----------



## dogcom

Unions are there for a reason because the government or the country wouldn't protect workers or create a proper and safe environment to work in.

Unions job is to exploit and get the most out of a company. Management and owners job is to work workers like slaves and get every last ounce of production and energy from them. 

So there is no right answer in the system of today because everyone is out to screw someone whether it be management or the union and its employees.

So it comes back to giving basic rights and conditions to both sides so neither side can be exploited to the maximum.


----------



## andrewf

We have labour law. 

Besides, it hasn't been my experience that companies are interested in squeezing every drop out of their employees. More like get a certain basic level of productivity. And the unionized employees are the ones the company tries the hardest to hold to a basic level of performance.


----------



## ranbam

thebomb said:


> ...... Unions have through the industrial revolution brought on great advances in health and safety and other benefits. Got it. I think their relevance today has shifted greatly from their original intention......


This is so true in my opinion.


----------



## 44545

I work for the public service, in HR, as a go-between my employer and the union on grievance issues. I feel I can offer a somewhat unique perspective.


publicly, unions have to be seen to stand up for their members, even the bad ones
privately, unions know who the under-performers are and don't want them as members
bad managers don't discipline and remove bad employees, perhaps out of fear of union reprisal
Don't lump all the problems on the union. Management has its fair share of culpability for not taking responsibility for problems.

A flashback from my time in the private sector, not so long ago: my manager had to fill out a form indicating how many "managers" worked in his unit to justify how much overtime was paid. (they never paid overtime) On his form, we were all "managers." (none of us were managers) That and other abuses at the hands of management, IMO, are a good selling point for union existence. 

Unions aren't supposed to defend the indefensible; they're around because inequities still exist or would exist in their absence. That they generate a whole other set of inequities is perhaps another discussion.


----------



## My Own Advisor

Unions are bad. I don't see the need for them to solve any first-world problems.

50 or 60 years ago, they served some purpose. These things have run their course IMO.


----------



## dogcom

Management is bad to and no one can really care less about you and me the world or the environment. I am no union lover for many reasons and they do need to come down a few notches. Sure there are good employers and such but if you start eroding the culture it will slowly go downhill until everyone is just a bunch of slaves. Of course some skills will be in more demand then others so that part will go up and down as it is needed. And workers don't have any rights in a non union shop as the employer is free to fire at will with little cause.


----------



## none

My Own Advisor said:


> Unions are bad. I don't see the need for them to solve any first-world problems.
> 
> 50 or 60 years ago, they served some purpose. These things have run their course IMO.


This is a gross generalization -- When I used to work as a fisheries observer, once we unioned - we all got a 50% pay raise. That's sounds great until you realized we were brought back up to levels in the early 80's - This was 2001.

CJOttawa has some excellent points.


----------



## sags

none said:


> This is a gross generalization -- When I used to work as a fisheries observer, once we unioned - we all got a 50% pay raise. That's sounds great until you realized we were brought back up to levels in the early 80's - This was 2001.
> 
> CJOttawa has some excellent points.


Interesting that in an age where employees wages have stagnated, to the point they are worth less than they were in the 1970s when adjusted for inflation, that there should be public discussions on the merits of unions, because some union members have managed to keep a little bit more.

The public service earned a decent living during the Chretien/Martin years..........and there was no crisis caused by it. Canada ran surpluses for many of those years.

Maybe the conversation should be, how do we level the playing field for workers......through union memberships and other methods.

Companies aren't paying their employees more because they can't afford it. They just don't want to.

I think that history will record that the Conservatives mismanaged the economy from a surplus to record deficits...........and wants to blame the workers for the problem.


----------



## Oldroe

Nobody has addressed the non union shops firing employees for no other reason than the owners want more money in there pockets.


----------



## dogcom

I actually pointed that out in my last post except for the more money in the pocket part but that is also true. As big a problem as unions can be they are nothing like the terrors of management unleashed to get as much money and production as possible.


----------



## Pennypincher

thebomb said "
have just wasted the last flippen year "arguing" (sorry- I mean 'negotiating') with the union at one of our facilites over the most bullshit claim. Hey - I get its part of my job, but what a waste of time. Unions cover the weakest link (aka the worst employees). "


Many union officials I have known through the years absolutely dislike representing those "worst employees". Trust me. It's unfortunately part of their job too.


----------



## andrewf

Oldroe said:


> Nobody has addressed the non union shops firing employees for no other reason than the owners want more money in there pockets.


Well, and the implication there is that they are not needed. Why should an employer pay someone when they are not needed?


----------



## MoneyGal

Don't know about some of you, but I prefer profitable companies over the alternative.


----------



## Nemo2

MoneyGal said:


> Don't know about some of you, but I prefer profitable companies over the alternative.


+1....(but perhaps we labor under the delusion that companies/businesses are formed in order to make money rather than to provide shelter for the under-utilized.):wink:


----------



## SpIcEz

Now I know there are extremes on both side of the row, however this is one of the points that irritates me.

Unions now, create this feeling that people are OWED jobs... now matter what. 

If you are not needed, why should a company keep you on the payroll?

Its this entitlement mentality that irritates me.


----------



## sags

Companies that hired too many employees and then have to lay them off............probably won't be around long anyways.

Contraction isn't a good sign for business.

It often means bigger problems in the future.


----------



## dogcom

MoneyGal said:


> Don't know about some of you, but I prefer profitable companies over the alternative.


Everyone prefers this and unions certainly don't pay enough attention to this point. Isn't the argument more to if unions are good or bad. If you put it to history I think they are good for what they have done for workers rights and bringing up the standard of living for everyone that has contributed to profitable companies as people have more money to spend and more leisure time to do it. Lately they are justifiably being punished for going to far in the last few decades or so and need to be brought back in line mostly in the public sector.


----------



## Eclectic12

andrewf said:


> Well, and the implication there is that they are not needed. Why should an employer pay someone when they are not needed?


This assumes that owner is on top of the business where it pans out the way the owner thinks. 

I've witnessed where the owner's perception was not reality so that the anticipated savings were eaten up by lost productivity/efficiency and having to hire two employees to replace the disgruntled one who liked the fired employee then followed them to another company. Never mind any mistakes made in the firing process that resulted in a wrongful dismissal lawsuit.




sags said:


> Companies that hired too many employees and then have to lay them off............probably won't be around long anyways...


Maybe ... but then again, based on this criteria, IBM & Oracle should have disappeared a long time ago. 

Or how about the roller coaster of the oil patch or the aerospace industry where a stalled or cancelled project can suddenly make a lot of employees no longer needed? 


Cheers


----------



## andrewf

The deal is... the owner takes the risk, the owner gets to make those decisions. Maybe it was not the right decision to have made, but the owner has the right make that mistake.

If you want a guaranteed job, join a commune.


----------



## Eclectic12

^^^^

I agree the owner gets to make the decision - I'm just saying that like the "perfect stock market" or "private industry is always cheaper", it is not so cut and dried as there is a large range of what happens.


Cheers


----------



## Oldroe

You can't go week without talking to somebody that worked for a company 20-25 years and suddenly the are let go.

My cousins wife works at the 3rd larges lawyer firm in Canada. She is expecting to be fired any quarter. They fire every body that gets to max holidays and max wage. She didn't forget her job she was good enough the make 22 years.


----------



## hystat

Oldroe said:


> You can't go week without talking to somebody that worked for a company 20-25 years and suddenly the are let go.
> 
> My cousins wife works at the 3rd larges lawyer firm in Canada. She is expecting to be fired any quarter. They fire every body that gets to max holidays and max wage. She didn't forget her job she was good enough the make 22 years.


Sending your most qualified employees out the door to compete with you sounds like a poor business model.


----------



## RBull

You could be right. However, another perspective could be that someone else who may be hungrier can provide satisfactory client billings at a much lower cost. 



hystat said:


> Sending your most qualified employees out the door to compete with you sounds like a poor business model.


----------



## andrewf

And paying them usually a huge severance. 

The problem is sometimes workers' productivity declines as they get older. Unfortunately, wages are very sticky (hard to decrease) so workers often are let go instead.


----------



## Oldroe

This is a firm with 3000 lawyers $800-1000/hr and ever body that gets 20 years suddenly can't do there job.

Most company's that get unions deserve to get unions.


----------



## 44545

Oldroe said:


> ...Most company's that get unions deserve to get unions.


Bingo.


----------



## hystat

RBull said:


> You could be right. However, another perspective could be that someone else who may be hungrier can provide satisfactory client billings at a much lower cost.


hungrier than someone you just fired? maybe. 
kind of a catch-22. 
making that dead wood unemployed might really light a fire under them.


----------



## sags

Oldroe said:


> Most company's that get unions deserve to get unions.


Often this is the case.

Unions aren't thrust upon the employees. They have to attract a union that is interested, and then vote for them to represent them.

It isn't an easy process............as employers usually fight against their employees having union membership.

Any time the employees no longer want the unions to represent them.........they can vote to decertify the union.

Unions are one of the most democratic organizations that exist.

Employees vote on everything from who represents them................to when they ratify a contract.

The union is the employee's representative to the employer.

If employees are looking to be represented by a union..........there usually are good reasons.

Large employers recognize that joint cooperation with the unions, provides a conduit that makes it easier to have good safety practices utilized, quality processes implemented, and wages and benefits are easier to negotiate with one representative of employees.............rather than dealing with thousands of employees who all feel they work harder and deserve more than the person sitting next to them.

Wage and promotion jealousy is more predominant in non union places of work.

Employers who are opposed to unions...........often fear giving up supreme power over their employee's life more than any perceived extra cost in wages and benefits.

If they are "good" employers, they would be paying decent wages and benefits even without the union.


----------



## andrewf

Unions are undemocratic in that there is no freedom of association. If you want the job, you have to do it through the union.


----------



## SpIcEz

Exactly andrewf.

Also, all of this talk,is not taking into account, gang mentality, intimidation, coercion, etc... tactics used by unions.

Not all unions are like this. But in the Auto industry, construction industry (especially in Quebec), the corruption and strong arm tactics are very present.


----------



## none

andrewf said:


> Unions are undemocratic in that there is no freedom of association. If you want the job, you have to do it through the union.


Then I guess every democracy on the plantet isn't actually a democracy because if you want to get the benefits of being a citizen than you have to go through the government.


----------



## andrewf

The point is, unions restrict freedom of association. Right to work legislation corrects this. Employees who wish to join a union may do so, while those who don't can opt out.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> If they are "good" employers, they would be paying decent wages and benefits even without the union.


But, with unions, it never ends.
It is never "enough" - always more has to be extracted - until the business grinds to its feet.

Nowhere else is this tendency of unions more apparent than in the public sector.
The CUPE and other PSUs are extracting ever increasing "rents" from the rest of the working population - far in excess of inflation.

Your argument is that any business surplus i.e. profit needs to be re-distributed to the workers as higher wages and benefits.
If not willingly, then unwillingly (under threat of strikes and work stoppages).
But what you see as evil profit, is what drives business, innovation, and growth.

Leaving aside a small % of greedy, corrupt capitalists, the vast majority of business owners and managers do not deserve this evil capitalist moniker.
Even the owners and managers of companies with unions.

If unions appropriate the majority of the surplus, it doesn't make the economy grow, as the communists found out several times.

In the case of public sector unions, they are not even appropriating profits - worse, they are appropriating hard-earned wages of *other* workers.
They are playing right into the hands of the very same evil, greedy capitalists that they want to avoid.


----------



## andrewf

More to the point: business owners aren't any more or less selfish, greedy or immoral than workers, including unions.


----------



## none

andrewf said:


> More to the point: business owners aren't any more or less selfish, greedy or immoral than workers, including unions.


Maybe not but business owners can have the power to act on that greed and they generally do. Hence, the necessity for unions.

Unions are good for society in general because they have the effect of bringing up wages for everyone at the cost of reducing the wages for the few. The growing income disparity in this country (and US) is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## andrewf

I don't know that high unionization rates ==> higher salaries in general is a proposition that is supported by evidence.

Unionization is an absolutely terrible way to reduce income inequality. The latter is a laudable and desirable goal, but there are better, more economically efficient ways to achieve it.


----------



## loggedout

Labor unions are associations of workers who are banded together for the purpose of improving their employment conditions and protecting themselves and their coworkers from *potential* economic and legal exploitation by employers/corporations when and where such exploitation is intended to maximize profits and minimize losses at the workers expense. Many may argue that we are now in a day and time when corporations are bounded by laws that prevent them from exploiting workers and therefore unions have long since served their purpose by being the instigators that fought for these laws which are now in place, and now do more harm than good because they make businesses unprofitable with unreasonable demands. 

So it seems to me that this entire topic is about the balance of power between workers and the employers and that finding a balance that is mutually beneficial to both parties is very difficult to both achieve and maintain.


I can't pick a side.


----------



## Oldroe

I know 3 brothers that bought dad's small manufacturing company they normally have between 5-10 employees. They pay $14.50/hr. Each brother takes home between 125k and 150k/ per year.


----------



## andrewf

Is that bad? How much capital do they have at risk?

Or would it be better for the shop to be unionized, the workers get paid $50k a year for a while, plus another $30k fringe, and force them to shut the firm? All the while, there are other workers out there who would happily take those jobs.


----------



## lonewolf

I think cycles also apply to unions of producing both positive & negitive results. Years ago unions I think helped to make the work place safer. Today some jobs might be lost due to the high pay. I think there will always be a cycling, A cycle could last many years of unions producing both positive results that are win/win for both the employer & employee & negitive out comes that create a lose/lose for the employer & employee. Of course there would be times when it is positive for one & negitive for the other.


----------



## sags

In a union shop, employees are required to join the union, but they are not required to pay dues to the union. They can choose to pay an equal amount to any charity they wish.

The union however, is required by law to treat all members the same, and any members who aren't contributing dues, receive the same protection of rights and benefits as dues paying members.

I knew a lot of union members, and have yet to meet one that wanted to leave the union.

Where I have a problem with "right to work" laws is that some people want to work in the union shop in order to receive the wages, benefits and protection of the union..............but don't want to pay their share to support the union.

If...........unions were not required to represent people who choose not to join.............we could have a discussion.

Otherwise............they are just freeloading off the dues paying members.

I wonder how many people would be interested in working for a union shop.......if the union members earned $30 a hour and they would earn $12, because the company really doesn't have to pay them any more than that........there are lots of other people who would work for that income.........is what they say.

I am sure they would be screaming about violating their human rights.


----------



## sags

There were 600 people working in our union shop.

Everyone earned a decent income.

When everyone took a buyout or retired...........the company hired temp workers to replace them.

The union was forced to allow the company to outsource "not essential" work.

The temp workers earn minimum wage.

Who gains in this scenario?

Do the workers gain? Do the small business in the community gain? Does the government gain from less revenue? 

The answer is..............they all lose. 

The company gains......profits increase.....executive bonuses are divided up......

And the transfer of wealth to the richest among us continues.


----------



## sags

Interesting to note.............coming from the assembly in Davos..........that many of the people interviewed are talking about the disparity between the wealthy and everyone else. The "wealth gap" is growing around the world and will breed social unrest and political upheaval.............and the politicians and business people are worried about it.

A poor way to transfer wealth or not.................unions do raise incomes.

It would appear that other methods have failed.


----------



## andrewf

Yes, I think that would be fine.


----------



## sags

Great.........then we can agree.

Change the laws so that a person has a clear choice.

They can join the union, abide by the terms of union membership, and abide by the contract.

Or..........they can choose not to join the union and negotiate their own salary, benefits, hours of work, seniority provisions, vacation pay, pension, sick time, health benefits, and layoff provisions directly with the employer.

That would be fair.


----------



## MrMatt

There are only 2 ways to get rich at the individual level, and only 1 way for society.
Individually you can take from others, or somehow force them to give more than your worth, you win someone else loses, it's a zero sum (or negative sum) game.

Individually and collectively you can create be more productive, everyone wins.

Unions are generally #1.


----------



## 44545

MoneyGal said:


> Don't know about some of you, but I prefer profitable companies over the alternative.


Profitability is improved by hiring the right people, providing them with the support, training, tools, and management they need to succeed and paying them fairly.

There is a massive, hidden host to corporate knowledge evaporating when employees quit.



> *The High Costs of Turnover*
> While the actual cost of employee turnover is hard to calculate, there is a general consensus on the importance of personal relationships in reducing employee defections. Studies also point to excellent ROI on programs designed to reduce turnover.
> • A survey of 700 companies found tenure was deter-mined primarily by the employee’s relationship with their immediate manager
> • The average cost of turnover is $100,000 per employee, including recruiting, training and lost productivity. Reducing
> turnover by 1% with more effective performance management can save $10M annually
> 
> _Source: Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, Saratoga Institute 2002_





sags said:


> Often this is the case.
> 
> Unions aren't thrust upon the employees. They have to attract a union that is interested, and then vote for them to represent them...


On that note, my spouse was working at a university and was trying to work toward better benefits and pay for her group.

They spoke to a union about their options and were scared the hell by the union's (how do I put this?) "rage." Lots of fist pounding on tables - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." 

On learning there was talk with that union, the university called the employees and simply gave them everything they wanted. It was easier than having to deal with the union.

Tangentially interesting:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaan...alent-leaves-top-10-reasons-boiled-down-to-1/



> *Why Top Talent Leaves: Top 10 Reasons Boiled Down to 1*
> _"Top talent leave an organization when they’re badly managed and the organization is confusing and uninspiring."_


----------



## andrewf

I mentioned turnover earlier. Many companies underestimate the cost of replacing employees, but that is because they are badly managed. The answer is not unions--it is increased competition. Badly managed companies are eventually swept away and replaced with well-run ones. Unionization usually goes hand in hand with government protection (to protect the union monopoly on the industry).


----------



## sags

Pounding on the table...........rage like union representatives are attractive to some members of their union, but these days most unions have come to the understanding the best way forward is to work with the employer towards the goal of better wages and benefits due to increased productivity and quality.

Sadly, some members of unions believe the "gorilla method" works.........but most realize are smart enough to know who is "buttering their bread".

It is a balance...........but when I wanted a reminder of how I would be treated without the union, I had only to look at how upper management treated their own salaried non union workforce.

Promised merit increases that never materialized.........with this excuse or that given.

Reductions in pensions and health benefits..............always the threat of "being let go" regardless of seniority.

And I found the biggest gripe among low and mid level management............no input on the jobs they would do or the shifts they would work.

Salary don't usually have a "posting" opportunity for vacant jobs, based on seniority. It is usually done by someone's discretion.

Many of the salaried people "wished" they had a union. Some regretted leaving the union to join management.

All depends on where you sit on the management totem pole..........perhaps.

I think unions do help to avoid what could be termed "office politics" and favortism.


----------



## sags

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that once in a union......somebody can never be fired.

This isn't usually true.......as most contracts contain clauses that promote "progressive discipline".

There are "steps" to take and document, that employers can use to effect discipline on a troubled employee.

Usually the people don't get fired........because as they progress along a couple of those steps, they are warned by the union they aren't completely immune, and they straighten themselves out.

Having said that...........I have seen employees dismissed on the spot........for theft, abusive behavour, or dangerous activities.

The union members will decide by a vote.........if they are going to expend the time and expense of fighting through arbitration to get their job back..............and often the other members of the union have little interest in doing so.


----------



## andrewf

I really think it depends on the employer. That sounds like a badly managed company. You can have unionized environments with plenty of politics, too. Lots of bullying, intimidation, assault, property damage and hostility to outsiders, too.


----------



## sags

There was a fair amount of politics.........as elections for representatives are held every couple of years, but I didn't see any of the other things.

We went on strike nationally 3 times during my tenure there........and everyone completed all their tasks, put the machinery exactly where the company asked for it to be put, manned the picket lines and didn't hinder non union people from entering or leaving the plant. The company provided the pickets with firewood for the barrel.

From my viewpoint, there was mutual respect between the union members and upper management, even if they had differing agendas.

I don't know why upper management treated their own salary staff so badly. Many salary retirees are bitter from the way they were treated, especially after they retired and had benefits arbitrarily taken away.

Several class action lawsuits resulted, but the company won them all based on their "right" to determine the benefits in lieu of no contractual obligations.


----------



## sags

For some reason I can't edit the previous post.........but I would add..........

Isn't the lack of contractual obligations the nub of the argument for many non union workers?

Through their working career and long into their retirement..........they are guaranteed nothing.

They might be promised something. They might count on something. The company may always have provided something in the past.

But without a contract...........people can expect nothing.


----------



## andrewf

Most salaried employees aren't made on-going promises anymore. DC pensions, etc.

I wouldn't want to rely on ongoing promises from an employer. I wouldn't want to be a GM pensioner, wondering when the checques would stop flowing in 2009. (of course we all got to bail them out)


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> For some reason I can't edit the previous post.........but I would add..........
> 
> Isn't the lack of contractual obligations the nub of the argument for many non union workers?
> 
> Through their working career and long into their retirement..........they are guaranteed nothing.
> 
> They might be promised something. They might count on something. The company may always have provided something in the past.
> 
> But without a contract...........people can expect nothing.


Or in the case of GM retirees, after retirements the union agreed to slash their retirement benefits, completely legal, and they didn't even get a vote.

Think about that, no recourse, no vote and someone else can simply "agree" to cut their promised benefits. 

What's worse than being promised nothing and getting nothing? Being promised something, and getting nothing. What makes it worse in the union case is you can't even take them to court because your union agreed, even if you didn't. Nice isn't it.


----------



## dogcom

Andrewf in a well managed company everything is good until management changes. I am sorry but idiots, bullies, losers and bad management is almost always there and if it is not then it is soon to come. This also goes for the employees and the union the idiots, scammers, losers, bullies are there to.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Or..........they can choose not to join the union and negotiate their own salary, benefits, hours of work, seniority provisions, vacation pay, pension, sick time, health benefits, and layoff provisions directly with the employer.
> That would be fair.


To make it truly fair, the company should have free choice (i.e. free from govt. protection) to employ whichever category of worker it chooses.
In the event of a work stoppage, the company has full right to engage free labor to keep their business going.

There should also be legislation protecting the tax-payers from having to bail out the said company every 10 years.
Said company is also not eligible for tax-payer funded grants, cost reduction incentives, and protection from foreign competition.

You can't eat your cake and have it too.


----------



## Oldroe

It was the Bankers and rating agency that made the financial Crisis.

GM, Chrysler and every other company that use the money markets on a daily basis were victims, including your mom and dad's GIC.

You don't really think GM has a vault with 80-100 billion siting in it.


----------



## sags

HaroldCrump said:


> To make it truly fair, the company should have free choice (i.e. free from govt. protection) to employ whichever category of worker it chooses.
> In the event of a work stoppage, the company has full right to engage free labor to keep their business going.
> 
> There should also be legislation protecting the tax-payers from having to bail out the said company every 10 years.
> Said company is also not eligible for tax-payer funded grants, cost reduction incentives, and protection from foreign competition.
> 
> You can't eat your cake and have it too.


Under "management rights", the company hires anyone they choose, and decides the hours of work, the location, and the day to day operations of the business. On an assembly line........they even decide when an employee can go to the bathroom.

Unions have no interest in running the business........which is why they aren't interested in having seats on the board, profit sharing, or other arrangements that make them an "employer". They have their own job to do.

Companies can also legally bring in workers in a strike situation, but most companies aren't interested because they would have to train their entire workforce, without the benefit of anyone to train them. 

Companies can and do also lock out workers...........NHL, Caterpillar...........and in the case of Caterpillar, they move somewhere else...............where another government is giving away money and the promise of cheaper labor.

That is the conundrum for governments on bailouts and incentives.

If they don't do it............someone down the road will.

Companies are in the extraction business full time now........extract from the host community, upper levels of government, and then extract the cheapest labour they can find.


----------



## sags

There was a discussion on CNBC the other day.......and it is interesting that despite all of Europe's problems, they have so many companies that have been around for so many years. Despite heavy unionism, they are still in business.

And the companies on the SP 500 average about 35 years of duration.


----------



## andrewf

Yes, but _so are unions_. It's not a struggle of good versus evil here. More like amoral vs amoral.


----------



## sags

Toyota is non union and just got a whack of money from the government to build another assembly line.

Toyota pays equivalent wages to the Big Three.........but doesn't use nearly as many full time employees.

They utilize temp workers...........with the promise of someday, maybe, becoming a full time "team member".

Anyone I know who works there absolutely hates their job and dislikes Toyota.......but the money is good.

It seems to me that the problems usually identified with "union jobs" aren't exclusive to union shops.

From my experience, I can understand why a small employer doesn't want the hassle of dealing with a union, but if I was a big employer..........I would embrace the union and deal with one representative of the workforce, rather than having to deal with tens of thousands of individuals, fighting with each other to be recognized, or feeling cheated out of merit increases or some other office politic types of things.

With a union............a company can get along nicely with a much smaller HR department.

There is the contract..........and all everyone has to do is follow it.

How big are some HR departments for some of those non union companies, dealing with all those problems?

At our plant of 600.................we had one very efficient lady.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> There was a discussion on CNBC the other day.......and it is interesting that despite all of Europe's problems, they have so many companies that have been around for so many years. Despite heavy unionism, they are still in business.
> 
> And the companies on the SP 500 average about 35 years of duration.


Not all of Europe has higher unionization rights than Canada, and in many of those countries, the way labour law works is different.


----------



## sags

The other day, the CEO of BMO did an interview on BNN.

The jist of his comments were that the banks were going to struggle going forward, because there is no new business for them to conquer. 

So, they are looking at more products for online banking, small micro branches that employ 6 people instead of 100, and it is all going to be whacking some jobs.

BMO is non union.............so how do they go about deciding who gets the axe?

Is it the old guy who is earning the most vacation time..........when a fresh new employee can do the same job for less?

Does the least efficient person get the boot...........or does their kid play hockey with the branch managers kid?

At least in a unionized setting............there is seniority and there are classifications........and the layoff order is clear.

When an employee puts in their time.........and moves up the seniority list.......they don't have to worry about small layoffs anymore, unless the company goes bankrupt.

Obviously as people get seniority, they are also getting older.

Having that seniority, gives them the opportunity to "bid" on less strenuous jobs as they become open.

There are so many benefits to being a member of a union, I don't get why anyone would choose not to join if given the opportunity.


----------



## andrewf

Seniority==preferential treatment on the basis on tenure rather than merit. Not exactly a good thing in my book.

People should be paid what they are worth. It is not just to keep a worse employee just because they have been around longer.


----------



## SpIcEz

I completely agree with Andrew here, seniority is important in some respects (choosing shifts, etc...) however salary, job security etc... based solely on seniority IMO is not a good thing.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> The company gains......profits increase.....executive bonuses are divided up......
> And the transfer of wealth to the richest among us continues.


It seems your primary justification for unions is as a leverage against greedy, evil, profiteering, capitalist corporations.
Let's leave that aside for a moment, but what is the justification for public sector unions?

There is no profit involved.
Work conditions are safe, there is no exploitation, compensation amongst the best in the country regardless of sector.

Why do they continue to disrupt essential services, extract ever increasing rents from the rest of us, and drive all levels of govt. into debt and deficit?
Is there any double digit productivity gains YoY that justify above average, and above inflation, raises?


----------



## sags

Agreed that it is imperfect..............but a completely merit based system is probably seldom followed.


----------



## none

HaroldCrump said:


> There is no profit involved.
> Work conditions are safe, there is no exploitation, compensation amongst the best in the country regardless of sector.


This is not true for all professions in the public service. It may be true for the lower skilled job but the higher skilled workers could actually make more in the private sector. Many decide to go into public service because they're nationalists.

I do agree that there needs to be a balance of power between the government & Unions. Then again, it seems like there are a lot of jobs being categorized as 'essential services' when clearly they are not.


----------



## SpIcEz

If you can make more elsewhere, but WANT to work somewhere for whatever reason, then deal with the lower pay.

It is not up to ME as a tax payer to pay you more just "because".

If the pay isn't sufficient in the public sector and there are private sector jobs available, workers will flock to it.
If the government cant attract employees, they'll increase the pay for that specific job.

I don't see the need for a Union in this case either...


----------



## HaroldCrump

none said:


> Many decide to go into public service because they're nationalists.


Leaving aside the armed forces, RCMP, and a couple of other services, the vast majority of govt. workers are no more nationalistic than the rest of us.
It is laughable to suggest that the majority of govt. workers choose that purely out of nationalism.



> I do agree that there needs to be a balance of power between the government & Unions.


Keep in mind that the "government" is a red herring here.
It is the tax-payers that are employing the public service.
The public sector unions are striking and bargaining against the rest of the tax-payers, the majority of whom are non unionized private sector workers.
Every concession that the unions extract go directly against the bottom line of ordinary, (equally) hard-working, non unionized workers.


----------



## none

I'm just saying from my own experience. I know a lot of government scientists who could make more in the private sector but choose public service because they believe in Canada.

I think it's silly, I actually think Canada is kind of a blah country but I was born here and life is easy so why not.


----------



## HaroldCrump

none said:


> I actually think Canada is kind of a *blah *country


Then, I assume you are not one of those nationalistic public sector workers


----------



## none

HaroldCrump said:


> Then, I assume you are not one of those nationalistic public sector workers


Nope. I may become one though if something falls into my lap. My finances are in order so really if the job looks good, regardless of whether it's public or private, I'll take it.

If the public sector offer isn't competitive then I'll go elsewhere.


----------



## 44545

andrewf said:


> Seniority==preferential treatment on the basis on tenure rather than merit. Not exactly a good thing in my book.
> 
> People should be paid what they are worth. It is not just to keep a worse employee just because they have been around longer.


That's another problem in unionized, seniority based environments: merit isn't rewarded.

Sure, there's job security, benefits etc but the people who go above and beyond are often not rewarded because there's no mechanism to do so. (or management feels their hands are tied and don't bother trying to reward merit)

On that note, the following quoted post is sadly, if comically, accurate.



> *On Getting a Job Promotion in Ottawa
> 
> Private Sector*
> "Hey Joe, you've been with the company for 9 years now, you have a good track record and you do quality work. Some of your ideas have translated to $1000's per year in savings and your streamlining recommendations have reduced over-head by 10-15%. We would like you to head the team to implement some of your other ideas - since you came up with them obviously you know them best.
> 
> How much salary increase do you think is justify-able?"
> 
> Then you negotiate money.
> 
> ___________________________
> 
> *Public Sector*
> "Hey Joe, you've been with the department for 9 years now, you have a good track record and you do quality work. Some of your ideas have translated to $1000's per year in savings and your streamlining recommendations have reduced over-head by 10-15%. We would like you to head the team to implement some of your other ideas - since you came up with them obviously you know them best.
> 
> So what we are going to do is put a notice up for internal and external applicants for a vague job description.
> 
> You should apply, but not by giving your resume to your Manager and Director, but by sending a text only version through a web site so that it can be analyzed by a computer program to make sure that the terms you use in your resume match those that we put in the essential qualifications section at a rate greater than 50%.
> 
> If your resume makes it through the screening, you will be invited along with the other candidates to participate in a written exam to assess your general knowledge of computing tends in 6 areas.
> 
> The test will be written by a 3rd party who is not familiar with the specific tasks of the job you are testing for. If you happen to score 60% or better in each of the sections, you will be invited for an interviews with your manager, the director and a neutral HR 3rd party.
> 
> The interview questions will be graded, but the questions will be written by a 3rd party who is not familiar with the specific tasks of the job you are testing for.
> 
> Should you pass the interview, you will need to provide 3 references that will be called and verified, even though you have worked here for 9 years and the job is in the same group, for the same manager you currently work for. If at the end of this process you happen to be the top candidate in the pool, you will receive a formal letter of offer from HR that you must sign and return within 10 days of the job posting. Once you have accepted, the job will become an acting position for the 3 month appeal process. If no one contests your job during the appeal period, then it will become indeterminate at the increment 1 salary level for the designation which is $2200 more than you currently earn. Good luck!"
> 
> Source: http://city-gatineau.blogspot.com/2008/09/getting-job-promotion-in-ottawa.html


----------



## indexxx

I'm all for unions. Of course there are potential downsides such as lazy, self-entitled employees who pass probation period and then coast- but in my experience, the better workers I have been involved with are in union places. Mind you, this is in the restaurant/bar industry, where worker skill levels, training, and management is extremely poor overall. But unions remove personal bias, abuse, and wrongful dismissal and ensure decent wages and benefits.


----------



## SpIcEz

http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/14753-Going-Back-to-School?p=167333&viewfull=1#post167333

Here is an example of someone from this very forum, leaving his current "SAFE" public sector job, to go back to school.
And he is doing this to save his SANITY.

Union environments have this "no work" or "low work" mentality to them.

I found, by doing work in all different types of offices, factories, private or public that those in the public sector (Aside from teachers, police, and maybe a few others) have no concept of what "Putting in, a good days work!" actually means.

Their definition of a "Good days work!" is completely outside the scope of reality.


----------



## The Financial Blogger

I don't see any benefits from being in a Union. In today's economy, if your employer doesn't treat you right, there are plenty of other jobs for you. Therefore, there is no point of paying extra money to get exactly what you can get elsewhere. Employers are understanding now the value of good employees staying with them


----------



## hystat

SpIcEz said:


> http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/14753-Going-Back-to-School?p=167333&viewfull=1#post167333
> 
> Here is an example of someone from this very forum, leaving his current "SAFE" public sector job, to go back to school.
> And he is doing this to save his SANITY.


Where his professors may be unionized, or at least the support staff...


----------



## Spidey

I used to be totally against unions. Previously I had the good fortune to work for considerate employers and I always figured that good employees would be treated properly. Then I moved to Ontario and had the experience of working for a couple of Nazis in an industry which offered no other options in my field. From my experience and anecdotal reports, it seems that Ontario employers have much lower respect for workers than BC employers. This increased respect is probably due, in part, to fear of unionization by employers in BC. Now I'm working for the Federal government and am very pleased with my union benefits.

By the way, I came with the same prejudices regarding federal government workers as many here. I'm quite impressed and admittedly surprised by the work ethic and dedication of most of my colleagues in the Federal government. It's as good as any private sector environment that I've worked in. There are inefficiencies to be sure, but it is due to bureaucracy and not the quality of the workforce.


----------



## dogcom

Doesn't this post by spidey say it all. This is what i was trying to say all along.

The problem with government is the bureaucracy and as we know bureaucracy feeds even more bureaucracy so they can justify their need. The normal person working there is doing their job and are not to blame unless they are just bad workers.


----------



## HaroldCrump

dogcom said:


> The problem with government is the bureaucracy and as we know bureaucracy feeds even more bureaucracy so they can justify their need. The normal person working there is doing their job and are not to blame unless they are just bad workers.


I don't know, man, I think there is something endemic and inherent in the govt. sector that breeds waste, bureaucracy, corruption, and greed.

A guaranteed and ever increasing source of revenue without having to work hard for it.
Add in a lack of accountability, and immunity from normal private sector market forces that weed out inefficiencies, over-supply, over-staffing, and over-compensation.

All of this creates a monolith that is simply a black hole for public finances, devouring ever increasing amounts of productive capacity from the rest of the economy.


----------



## sags

Unionization stops at the first rung of management, so I think it would be unfair to blame them for problems in the public service.

A little like blaming the guy on the assembly line...........when the motor fails on your new car.

Macleans magazine had an issue a couple months ago, that had 99 items of disgraceful spending by government.

I don't recall any of them being related to the union or unionized workers, but lots by polticians and senior bureaucrats.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Unionization stops at the first rung of management, so I think it would be unfair to blame them for problems in the public service.
> 
> A little like blaming the guy on the assembly line...........when the motor fails on your new car.
> 
> Macleans magazine had an issue a couple months ago, that had 99 items of disgraceful spending by government.
> 
> I don't recall any of them being related to the union or unionized workers, but lots by polticians and senior bureaucrats.


Government has big ticket waste, and the overpaid staff issue.
If it weren't for the unions, we wouldn't have an overpaid public service.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Unionization is the highest in the public sector.
Outside of the public sector, unionization rate is very low, and steadily falling.

It is indicative that we see highest unionization rates in the public sector or publicly-funded quasi private corporations, such as the auto manufacturers.
Therefore, well over 90% of unionization is public sector + public sector funded.

I find it offensive that as tax payers, we have to fund and support those that bargain against us, and then blackmail us by with-holding services.


----------



## Nemo2

HaroldCrump said:


> Unionization is the highest in the public sector.
> Outside of the public sector, unionization rate is very low, and steadily falling.
> 
> It is indicative that we see highest unionization rates in the public sector or publicly-funded quasi private corporations, such as the auto manufacturers.
> Therefore, well over 90% of unionization is public sector + public sector funded.
> 
> I find it offensive that as tax payers, we have to fund and support those that bargain against us, and then blackmail us by with-holding services.


+1


----------



## sags

According to Stats Can...........unionized members comprise 71% of the public service. The other 29% are non union jobs.

I would hazard a guess that the non union 29% earn more in aggregate than the union 71%.

Public service earnings are about 7.7% higher than private sector jobs on average.....with some of the differential attributed to unionization. 

_Earnings are generally higher in unionized as compared to non-unionized jobs. Factors other than collective bargaining provisions contribute to this. These include varying distributions of unionized employees by age, sex, job tenure, industry, occupation, firm size, and geographical location. The effects of these factors are not examined here. *However, unionized workers and jobs clearly have characteristics associated with higher earnings. **For example, unionization is higher for older workers, those with more education, those with long tenure, and those in larger workplaces.* Still, a wage premium exists, which, after controlling for employee and workplace characteristics, has been estimated at 7.7% (Fang and Verma 2002)._

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2011004/article/11579-eng.htm


----------



## RBull

Interesting stats. Many of the non union jobs would be management and some with collective agreements. 

I wonder how the total package with pensions, other benefits compares to private sector. 

I'm with HaroldCrump on this one. I can't help but wonder how it is that Canadians benefit from these public servant unions other than the members themselves. It's also perplexing to see those who are supposed to serve Canadian taxpayers are more generously treated than "average" Canadians. 





sags said:


> According to Stats Can...........unionized members comprise 71% of the public service. The other 29% are non union jobs.
> 
> I would hazard a guess that the non union 29% earn more in aggregate than the union 71%.
> 
> Public service earnings are about 7.7% higher than private sector jobs on average.....with some of the differential attributed to unionization.
> 
> _Earnings are generally higher in unionized as compared to non-unionized jobs. Factors other than collective bargaining provisions contribute to this. These include varying distributions of unionized employees by age, sex, job tenure, industry, occupation, firm size, and geographical location. The effects of these factors are not examined here. *However, unionized workers and jobs clearly have characteristics associated with higher earnings. **For example, unionization is higher for older workers, those with more education, those with long tenure, and those in larger workplaces.* Still, a wage premium exists, which, after controlling for employee and workplace characteristics, has been estimated at 7.7% (Fang and Verma 2002)._
> 
> http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2011004/article/11579-eng.htm


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> According to Stats Can...........unionized members comprise 71% of the public service. The other 29% are non union jobs.


How is "public service" being defined here?
Does it include crown corps?
Does it include agencies such as OPG and OPA (one of the worst in terms of over-staffing and over-compensation).

Also, certain sectors and industries such as auto manufacturing are so heavily subsidized that we might as well consider them govt. agencies.

It is not simply as a result of unions that we have over-compensation in the public sector...public sector in general is grossly over-compensated.
I agree with your point in a post above that the non unionized management positions in the public sector are perhaps more to blame.
To me, the entire public sector requires a compensation re-structuring to more rational levels.
De-unionization should be part of that overhaul.


----------



## RBull

^crown corps is mentioned in the article but I didn't see anything more specific. 

I agree about the complete restructuring. I read somewhere this is happening with respect to pensions where employee contribution rates were being raised.


----------



## SpIcEz

sags said:


> *However, unionized workers and jobs clearly have characteristics associated with higher earnings. **For example, unionization is higher for older workers, those with more education, those with long tenure, and those in larger workplaces.*


I dont even know what this sentence is supposed to mean...

- Is this referring still only to the public sector?
- If so how does age factor in to the amount of unionized workers and how is that factor relevant. So more old people work in the sectors that are unionized, the population is aging. Wait 20 years and those sectors will have an influx of young workers... joining that same union.
- *... those with more education...* Now this one I have a hard time to believe. Except maybe for professors, and maybe its true, however this would be a freak occurrence in the public sector only. I would really love to see comparisons with the private sector on this fact, I'm sure the stats swing in a completely different direction. 
- *... those with long tenure...* Of course this is a fact, one of the purposes and/or consequences of unions is to protect jobs, in perpetuity, wether you deserve it or not, just because of seniority. Why this is a good thing, is beyond me. This is one of the worst things about unions in my opinion. Seniority over merit makes for an environment with decreasing productivity.
- *... those in larger workplaces...* Id like to know what this one has to do with the sentence preceding it... ??


----------



## sags

Re........education levels.

Lawyers, judges, crown attorneys, nurses, accountants, hospital administrators, professors, teachers, scientists........to name a few.

Re.........long tenure

Only means that long service employees generally earn more than new employees. I don't think the private sector operates much differently.

Re..........larger workplaces.

Bigger companies usually pay better than smaller companies.

Also not discussed in the article..........is how much revenue the work of public servants bring into the government every year.


----------



## SpIcEz

*Re........education levels.*
Your mentioning professional associations as if they where unions.

Though some of their goals coincide, they are not exactly the same, and do not behave the same either.

Your list also seems overly broad._ (Are hospital administrators even allowed to bargain collectively? Arent they part of management??)_

*Re.........long tenure*

So whats your point? I read everything you write and its just like a jumble of words meant to back the purpose of unions, but I'm sorry to say, (maybe I'm dense) but allot of what you say makes no sense.

What does long tenure have to do with unions, if your reply to me is that the private sectors operates much the same? Maybe I'm just not understanding the point your trying to make...

*Re..........larger workplaces.*

Of course bigger companies pay more. They are bigger, thus make for a MUCH more interesting targets for unions. 
Union recruiters wont bother trying to convince 3 guys in a small shop to band together, however convince 3 guys with enough charm to convince the other 3000 guys in a big company and whoo hoo PAY DAY. They get a **** tonne more union dues to fill up the coffers.

----------

About your last point...

Public workers are a cost. This cost is paid for out of MY wages, and yours and all the tax payers. Most of the services are not revenue generating, they are redistribution of services.

There are some exceptions, like crown corporations (i.e. Hydro Quebec). However, even though HQ, is revenue generating, and this is added to the provinces budget, which is a boon for Quebecers, they SHOULD be generating MORE profit, if it weren't for the lazy, leeching, union workers. I know first hand they people there are over paid, under used and unproductive.

Another crown corporation example liquor commissions (i.e. SAQ in Quebec).

Thing is, even if you look at this as a revenue generating corporation, in reality its a TAXING agency, same as the lottery. So its in fact NOT a revenue generating company, but should be viewed the same as the CRA. 

All inefficiencies, exorbitant salaries and other issues is money being stolen from citizens in the form of less dividends paid back to the state.

When LCBO and SAQ cashiers are making 24$ an hour, which is the same salary as a NURSE, how can we keep defending these unions.

SERIOUSLY, a cashier, making as much as a trained nurse... my head goes BOOM.


----------



## Ihatetaxes

SpIcEz said:


> When LCBO and SAQ cashiers are making 24$ an hour, which is the same salary as a NURSE, how can we keep defending these unions.
> 
> SERIOUSLY, a cashier, making as much as a trained nurse... my head goes BOOM.


Explains why my 60 of Mount Gay Rum cost me $54 yesterday at the LCBO (the same exact bottle costs me $24 at my favourite liquor store in Florida).

ReDONKulous.


----------



## fraser

With the exception of the public service sector, I think that many firms get the unions that they deserve. We only ever seem to hear about situations where the employer and the union are at loggerheads. There are many examples where the opposite is true-good employers and fair, realistic unions.


----------



## jcgd

For an unneeded, discretionary item like liquor, how do you asses fair value or price? They could tax it until it is simply unaffordable and I don't see any issue with it. Don't like it, make your own beer. 

I'm just saying I don't see comparisons between essential public sector jobs like teachers and public sector liquor store workers. One performs an essential service, the other just helps lower the tax payers' cost for the former. The way I see it, tax smokes and liquor to the extent that the people will still pay for it and reduce taxes elsewhere.


----------



## SpIcEz

jcgd said:


> For an unneeded, discretionary item like liquor, how do you asses fair value or price? They could tax it until it is simply unaffordable and I don't see any issue with it. Don't like it, make your own beer.
> 
> I'm just saying I don't see comparisons between essential public sector jobs like teachers and public sector liquor store workers. One performs an essential service, the other just helps lower the tax payers' cost for the former. The way I see it, tax smokes and liquor to the extent that the people will still pay for it and reduce taxes elsewhere.


Though I completely disagree with you on your views about alcohol and taxing it to bleed the population dry, (Tobaco is another issue), the my point is not about taxing the alcohol, but more about wasting money.

IF you are going to bleed me and all other citizens by taxing alcohol products like crazy, then that money BETTER go towards (like you said) lowering the tax payers cost for essential services.

Please tell me, how paying a CASHIER, 24$ an hour, is an efficient way of transferring that money towards essential services? (not to mention the rest of the administration staff, truckers, lazy unionized warehouse workers, etc...).


----------



## jcgd

Although its not apparent by my post, I do agree that the cashier making $24/ hour is absurd. I'm strictly commenting on the taxing of different products/ services. 

If it came down to choosing union or non union with what I know about both I would support non union all the way. After once watching a union company rip out a days work that I just completed just to watch them install literally the same stuff they tore out I made up my mind about unions. They said that the work was in their contract, so they were doing it. It was disgusting.


----------



## SpIcEz

Oh, I have seen that done. And like you, found it disgusting.


----------



## Nemo2

jcgd said:


> the cashier making $24/ hour is absurd.


I haven't lived in B.C. for 15 years, but I seem to recall that the people working in the gift shops on B.C. Ferries were similarly compensated.......unions again.


----------



## HaroldCrump

SpIcEz said:


> Please tell me, how paying a CASHIER, 24$ an hour, is an efficient way of transferring that money towards essential services?


That is just the base wage.
The loaded cost per employee to the tax payer would be far higher due to other typical public sector benefits, such as defined benefit pensions, 100% drug plan coverage, etc.


----------



## MoneyGal

Conventional estimate is 30%.


----------



## Daniel A.

I spent my working life as a union member in the private sector.

I watched the non-union side made up of office workers walking on eggshells.
They had little input into there work environment then there was the management changes every so many years with the latest greatest system.
I watched many good people get dumped because a boss didn't like them, they said something a manager didn't like and became a target.

So your not acting like a team player, monthly reviews then weekly reviews then the door.

When I read polls about work place stress the number of people putting in 50-60 hours a week not compensated for the time well maybe they will get a bonus at the end of the year.
Unions work of their members.
Labor laws mean very little unless one has plenty of time and money.
I know a number of non- union workers that signed release forms only because they could not afford to do otherwise.

In the last 10-15 years polls show that work place stress and trying to find a balance between family and work is harder.
Interesting that the fall in union membership over the same time mirrors the polls.

Union is a dirty word to managers and anyone talking like that in a non-union work place is toast.
You can be at home and mention it but once word gets back to the boss your gone.

Few non-union workers have a choice other than find another job.
Put ten or fifteen years into a job then try to make it work a bit better find a better balance maybe your employer will work with you maybe not.
Easy for some to say you don't like it get another job.


----------



## sags

The BC Ferry CEO earned 1,137,000 in 2011

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/06/28/bc-ferries-executive-pay.html

And secured a 313,000 pension after 10 years of service.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...s-directors-defend-ceo-pension/article586708/


----------



## sags

Good post Daniel.

My experience, from working in both management and as a union member, is pretty much the same.

The management staff were envious of the protections and rights the union members had negotiated, but too afraid for their jobs to do anything about it.


----------



## hystat

I took 2 BC Ferries last summer. I paid for the tix with my after tax union wage money. I thought the service and value was fine. The food was quite good. I don't have a problem with a cashier making $24 if the business is well managed with sharp pencils pointed at controlling the big costs, like what ships to buy and how not to run over whales. I doubt the unionized labour is a back breaker for that company. It seemed busy. Vancouver seems to be oozing money. I can't imagine trying to live there on minimum wage.


----------



## AltaRed

The problem is the deadwood that exists in unions, facilitated by seniority. If the concept was 'pay for performance', with the ability to select on the basis of competence and productivity, I'd have no problem. I had to manage eliminating union jobs back in the mid-80s in the mid-continent. The bumping process ended up dumping some of the best workers that I would loved to keep, while keeping some slack asses, all because of seniority. Enough to make one puke. The union model has to change if it is going to remain competitive in a global market


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> The BC Ferry CEO earned 1,137,000 in 2011
> And secured a 313,000 pension after 10 years of service.


The problem, in this case, is not specifically unions, but the public sector in general.
Compensation in the public sector - unionized or non-unionized, management or worker bee - is completely out of whack with both reality and affordability of the tax-payers.
Unions are part of the problem, but not the entire problem.

Anywhere and anytime you have an organization that has a guaranteed, unlimited source of revenue (via taxes), and no accountability or performance metrics, corruption, greed, and waste of this type will be rampant.
This is akin to communist-era public enterprises in the USSR, East Germany, etc.

I said in one of the posts in this thread that as far as the public sector is concerned, we need a complete overhaul and rationalization of the compensation structure.
Dissolving public sector unions should ideally be part of the process.


----------



## Oldroe

That's why unions work so well. You can't keep your little pets. You can't just fire people because of seniority. As a manger you need to get off your fat a--s and put a case together. You didn't and likely because there was no case.


----------



## SpIcEz

The problem is they work too well in that regard.

Lets assume, I'm a decent manager. I have a situation where I need to make cuts in a department and I have a choice between 2 people. One has seniority, but is half as productive as the other.

Even if I build a case, I cannot make the right decision for the company, which is to keep the good working employee.
I HAVE to keep the one with 5, 2 or 1 year seniority, simply because he was hired before, even though he is not a good worker.

How can you justify this?


----------



## Oldroe

No on a daily bases you let people under perform. As a manger you were to lazy, to tired, what ever your excuse. Then cuts come and you still have the problem. So being a lazy manger you blame the union and seniority.


----------



## sags

I am not sure an employer could "justify" employee layoffs due to work productivity, even in a non union environment.

Other factors could contribute...............such as age.

An Arbitrator/Judge may well ask how the person gained seniority in the first place, if their work was substandard. 

Is there documentation of the employee's lack of production and company responses to correct the situation?

If not...........why not?

It has been my experience that even in non union jobs, seniority is usually a factor in determining the order of layoffs, if only to avoid future claims of "age discrimination" or other legal problems.

Union contracts can actually make a supervisor's job considerably easier, by providing the procedure for layoffs, job transfers, wages and benefits, hours of employment......etc.

All a supervisor has to do is consult "the book". Everything has been laid out in there by upper management for them to follow.


----------



## Nemo2

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...ions_against_a_union_pension_fund_walkom.html



> On Sunday, delegates from a Canadian Labour Congress convention marched with the strikers to demonstrate union solidarity.
> 
> But at the same time, one of the key investors in privately-held Porter Aviation Holdings Inc. is the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS), the pension fund for unionized public sector workers.
> 
> When I finally caught up with strikers Monday, they weren’t picketing Porter at all. Instead, most had set up their signs outside OMERS headquarters on University Ave., where they were trying, with varying degrees of success, to embarrass their union comrades.
> 
> Representatives of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Canadian Autoworkers all sit on the OMERS board.
> 
> What’s even weirder is that OMERS handles the pension funds of 1,189 members of the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union, which represents Porter fuel handlers.
> 
> So at one level, the Porter workers are on strike against their own union.........................//...................In the end, the Ottawa workers accepted whatever Porter was willing to give them — against the advice of their union.
> 
> It may have been a bad deal for them. But it probably helped support other workers’ pension funds. The contradictions are very 21st century.


----------



## MoneyGal

Nice. I'm on my way to Billy Bishop for a Porter flight in 5 minutes.


----------



## Lephturn

Easy one - bad.

I will not give up the ability to negotiate my own work terms and compensation. I will not sign a union contract. I do not think it is right that I should have to turn down a job because of it.

Any public sector union should be illegal. There is no way that a government monopoly should allow a unionised work force. Unions have the power to hold taxpayers hostage by striking and there is no competition or option to deliver those services. If FedEx is on strike I can use UPS. If Loblaws is on strike I can go to Metro. If my local government service goes on strike I have no option for those services... I have no choice. One side is negotiating with a gun to their head.


----------



## HaroldCrump

^ 100% agree with the above.
The "right" to collective bargaining should apply both ways.
If unions have the right to hold the country hostage, well, the tax payers ought to have the right to fire the entire union and procure free labor.
The various levels of government should be bargaining with the same ferocity, the same adamancy, which the unions bargain with.

As the single largest employer in the country, the tax payers have the right to demand more favorable terms for themselves.

Public sector unions are a slap on the face of hard-working tax payers.


----------



## Nemo2

Lephturn said:


> One side is negotiating with a gun to their head.


And that's the one who (ironically) is paying for the cartridges.


----------



## peterk

Agreed. There was a good article a while back about how union bargaining is all "fake" anyways. 

The union has to pretend it's damaging the profitability of the government (it's not), like a real company, while the government has to pretend like it can't legistate the employees back to work, which it can.


----------



## SpIcEz

Lephturn said:


> Easy one - bad.
> 
> I will not give up the ability to negotiate my own work terms and compensation. I will not sign a union contract. I do not think it is right that I should have to turn down a job because of it.
> 
> Any public sector union should be illegal. There is no way that a government monopoly should allow a unionised work force. Unions have the power to hold taxpayers hostage by striking and there is no competition or option to deliver those services. If FedEx is on strike I can use UPS. If Loblaws is on strike I can go to Metro. If my local government service goes on strike I have no option for those services... I have no choice. One side is negotiating with a gun to their head.


+10


----------



## sags

I would bet there aren't a whole lot of union members on the Ontario "Sunshine List" of people earning over 100,000 in the public sector.

Just from glancing over the list..........I found a few possible union members scattered here and there, among the 88,412 names.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/03/28/ontario-sunshine-list.html?cmp=rss


----------



## andrewf

What about all the teachers, cops and firefighters on the list? There are thousands and thousands of them.


Remember that this is SALARY. Fringe costs add up to 50%...


----------



## GoldStone

sags said:


> I would bet there aren't a whole lot of union members on the Ontario "Sunshine List" of people earning over 100,000 in the public sector.


You would lose your bet. Tons of union members on the list.

Police officers, firefighters, university and college faculty, teachers, nurses, truck & bus drivers, technicians, mechanics, you name it. They are all there in good numbers.


----------



## sags

In the "judiciary" section.........there are 628 names on the list in 3 categories only.

Judges, Justice of the Peace, and Case Managers. 

Not a single union member. Where are all the law clerks and support staff on the list?

In the "Legislative" section...........there are 65 names on the list.

Not a single union member. Where are all the union members that work in that area?

Sure there are teachers, firefighters, nurses, and mechanics who made the list.........who worked a lot of overtime to reach those heights.

I didn't find a single bus driver or transit driver anywhere on the list.

This list is predominantly public service management.....and the union has no impact on their salaries.


----------



## GoldStone

Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation
2455 technicians

School boards
1973 teachers

Colleges
4016 professors

Universities
10568 professors

Hospitals
2552 nurses

Municipalities
1653 fire fighters
3534 constables
2402 sergeants


----------



## GoldStone

sags said:


> I didn't find a single bus driver or transit driver anywhere on the list.


They are called Operators or Transit operators. Lots of them on the list. See Municipalities.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags, keep in mind that the "Sunshine" list is simply the crème-de-la-crème of the Ontario public sector.
To use another expression, it is the tip of the iceberg.

There is a whole big hunk of an iceberg underneath this.

And Ontario, like the good ol' Titanic, is headed straight for it.

BTW, the "Sunshine" list was perhaps Harris' idea of a sick joke...that list should have been named the "Blacklist" or the "Slap in your face" list.


----------



## HaroldCrump

This is funny...

Union workers in a Goodyear manufacturing plant in Amiens-Nord, France, kidnapped two managers and held them hostage for 2 days in order to extract higher severance packages.

_*Goodyear managers held hostage by workers in France freed by police*_

_The union is demanding the 1,250 employees receive 80,000 euros ($108,000) plus 2,500 euros ($3,400) for each year worked, according to the AP. 
Goodyear has offered them 27,000 euros, but it had offered them 80,000 euros when the tire maker first discussed plant closings with the union several years ago, but the offer was rejected._

Apparently, in France there are specific laws against workers kidnapping managers (known as "*bossnapping*")

_Current law says boss-napping is punishable by a five-year prison sentence and a 75,000 euro ($102,000) fine so long as the executives are released unharmed in under a week, but workers are rarely prosecuted, the Associated Press says.
Executives from 3M, Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard, and Sony have all been taken hostage by French workers over the past few years.
_

The funniest part is the following statement from the CEO to the French Industry Minister:

_"How stupid do you think we are? 
The French workforce gets paid high wages but works only three hours. 
They get one hour for breaks and lunch, talk for three and work for three." 
He concluded by saying, *"You can keep the so-called workers."*_


----------



## sags

It sounds like a workforce and union gone amok.

It is foolish union leadership who refuse to recognize the reality of the business cycle and put themselves out of work.

There are those..........but mostly unions work with companies developing solutions to all kinds of problems.......most of them not interesting enough for the media to cover.

Employee substance abuse, domestic violence, personal counseling, workplace safety, charity campaigns.......being a few among them.

As one example

When the headlines read that " X company gave $200,000 to the United Way" it is most likely the union and it's members who did the campaigning, ran the events, and fund raised the money........not the X company executives.

Unions have many branches, committees and agendas......from worker education to health care for retirees.

On balance, unions are a good thing to have in the workforce, and their absence does not improve anything.


----------



## Oldroe

I couldn't tell you how many money collection I've donated too.

One I remember is to get the Cancer Center in Oshawa seed money. It's was like $20-30/per week for 3 years. At the end GM announced 25 million donated by GM and that kind of irradiated me. I go there almost every day with my dad seem very small.

Another time I went to the ball game with the union guys. Some money collection. Buzz Hargrove was a couple row in front of us, 2 people stopped by to thank Buzz/CAW for donating to there Community Center.

CAW donates to hundreds of things like this.


----------



## realist

HaroldCrump said:


> A guaranteed and ever increasing source of revenue without having to work hard for it.
> Add in a lack of accountability, and immunity from normal private sector market forces that weed out inefficiencies, over-supply, over-staffing, and over-compensation.
> 
> All of this creates a monolith that is simply a black hole for public finances, devouring ever increasing amounts of productive capacity from the rest of the economy.


This is nonsense. Please tell all the employees that got laid off last year how "immune" they are. Government jobs have traditionally been secure, but that is not always the case.

Devouring productivity? The Canadian economy would grind to a halt without a number of government regulated industries.


----------



## SpIcEz

realist said:


> Devouring productivity? The Canadian economy would grind to a halt without a number of government regulated industries.


Your comment makes no sense. And has nothing to do with HaroldCrumps comment.

Can you elaborate?


----------



## realist

SpIcEz said:


> Your comment makes no sense. And has nothing to do with HaroldCrumps comment.
> Can you elaborate?


Harold is painting government as a "a monolith that is simply a black hole for public finances, devouring ever increasing amounts of productive capacity from the rest of the economy. " This is simply not true and is indicative of a general lack of understanding of what the government does that most people have.

Government regulation or other participation positively contributes to:
- transportation
- aviation
- public health
- food and agriculture
- immigration and border control
- education
...Amongst others. 

It is not fun watching a large chunk of your paycheque going towards vague "stuff" in the form of taxes but the idea that we as taxpayers are not getting a LOT of stuff for that money is ridiculous. Entire industries would shut down, become more expensive, or become less safe without government. If you disagree with that then you have a much more optimistic view of corporate responsibility than I do!

You could cut 100% of the so-called "gravy" in government and the average person would barely see a dent in their taxes.


----------



## SpIcEz

It seems like you are trying to teach a class on "Benefits of our governing system - 101" for high school.

You are right, and you are wrong. Your oversimplification ruins your statement.

Someone complaining of mis-management in the public sector (we are talking about work here), meaning in Education, CRA, or any crown corporation too, means, people are over paid for menial jobs or have no incentive to be productive as the union protects their jobs no matter how much work they produce, etc...

This does NOT mean to say "DOWN WITH THE GUBERMINT, ABOLISH ALL REGULATIONS, ANARCHY FOR THE CANUCKISTAN!!!!!"

Your right, a large chunk (close to 50% for allot of people and more) of our income goes towards building and maintaining a better society which we live in, called Canada. Now if people waste it, or its used to create fake jobs, and pay people INSANE PENSIONS that most tax payers cant even get from themselves, or mis-management squanders those funds, well, we have a right to scream high and mighty, WTF are you DOING!!!!

I'm all for contributing to our society, but if my money is being wasted because unions are making sure its being siphoned away for a select few, then I have a right to be MAD.



realist said:


> You could cut 100% of the so-called "gravy" in government and the average person would barely see a dent in their taxes.


Why is that? Is it because there is WAY TOO MUCH GRAVY? Why should I be paying for gravy? It should be LEAN LEAN LEAN. No gravy, whatsoever.


----------



## Oldroe

As always the drum beaters trot out the 3% and totally forget the 97% that go to work do there jobs raise there family's and contribute to society.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Oldroe said:


> As always the drum beaters trot out the 3% and totally forget the 97% that go to work do there jobs raise there family's and contribute to society.


One doesn't have to be unionized to contribute to society.
We all contribute to society, pay our taxes, raise families, etc.
Union workers do not have an extra chip on their shoulders.

Unions are in the business of making some workers more equal than others.
They do this by becoming a vote bank for certain politicians and certain political parties.

As *SpIcEz *said above:



> Someone complaining of mis-management in the public sector (we are talking about work here), meaning in Education, CRA, or any crown corporation too, means, people are over paid for menial jobs or have no incentive to be productive as the union protects their jobs no matter how much work they produce


Just as shareholders of a business have the right (and responsibility) to expect optimal productivity, reasonable compensation, and good work ethics, so have the tax payers the right to expect that from the public sector they fund.
The public sector should remember that were they operating as a business, a lot of things would have been different in terms of their work demands and compensation.


----------



## Oldroe

If you get quotes on a construction project both union and non union they will come in at the same $. The owner of the non union shop will tell you he can't afford to pay union wage.

And that of course is bull he is charging the same $ for the job and is greedy enough to convince employees it's good for then to make 30% less.

So stop complaining just accept that your employer is ripping you off for 30%.


----------



## SpIcEz

Oldroe said:


> If you get quotes on a construction project both union and non union they will come in at the same $. The owner of the non union shop will tell you he can't afford to pay union wage.
> 
> And that of course is bull he is charging the same $ for the job and is greedy enough to convince employees it's good for then to make 30% less.
> 
> So stop complaining just accept that your employer is ripping you off for 30%.


First off, quotes are based on market prices, workload of said construction companies, base material prices and labour costs. As you'll notice, labour is not the only factor and IMO one very important one is market prices.

If everyone is charging 1 000 000$ for (avg commercial building), then you'll get quotes between 950 000$ and 1 050 000$ most likely, unless one of those contractors has NO contract on the books at the moment and is hungry, then he'll take a margin loss just to keep his guys busy and working. 

Point is, labour costs are not the only factor in setting prices.

Now about quotes from shops with union or non union... all nice to speculate and all, but here in Quebec, all workers are Union in construction, whether you have a job or not, you are part of the union, wages are set across the province, there is no escaping the union, thus there is no market prices. Those unions are BIG and POWERFUL, hell, they manage the BIGGEST investment fund in Quebec (Fond de solidarity du Quebec). And the leaders of those unions are corrupt crooks. They have money up the wazoo, they bully and intimidate workers, clients and shops.

They are like middle men, skimming a little on each job and making sure all workers work slowly and lazily. Dont believe me? With a little research you'll find out that everything costs about 30% more to build in Quebec then elsewhere in north america. Most of the 30% is corruption and unions.


----------



## warp

The PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS are sending this, ( and other countures) , into Bankruptcy.

I cannot stand the govt unions, and their fat paychecks, their over the top benefits, and their ludicrously generous pensions, which my son and grandchildren will be paying for.

Unless some politician finally stands up to them, ( don't hold your breath)....the future for Canada is full of more and more debt, and taxes, resulting in chaos all round..( see Greece)


----------



## Oldroe

When ice storm happen I want well trained with all the proper licensed people out working to get power on.

I don't want fly by night contractors picking up day employees at the man power office.

I want people that went to college spent time learning there trade and are good at there jobs. That can buy house and cars and buy food and clothing.


----------



## HaroldCrump

There is nothing about unionization that guarantees any of those attributes.
There are licensed professions, high quality training, high quality education, high work ethics, etc. in non unionized jobs.
Some job types that may be heavily unionized in one country may not be so in other countries.

Unionization in the public sector is neither necessary nor acceptable - it is a small subset of tax payers bargaining against the rest to gain a better "deal" for themselves.
It has become simply a vote bank and a rent seeking guild.


----------



## dogcom

Workers and those at the top end need to come together to form a fair system for all in this country. In North America we have shipped all our manufacturing overseas and massively overpay the top executives and CEO's in both the public and private sector. Public sector unions are overpaid and the productivity is out of line but again the top end everywhere is is overpaid to the extreme and I don't think you can have a properly functioning economy under these conditions.

Next we need to end manipulation and financial engineering and bring back price discovery to all of North America. A lot needs to be done and just targeting unions so people can earn less while atrocities go on all around us will get us nowhere.


----------



## Nemo2

dogcom said:


> the top end everywhere is is overpaid to the extreme


How does that compare to, say, a hockey player getting $10 million a year?


----------



## hystat

Nemo2 said:


> How does that compare to, say, a hockey player getting $10 million a year?


I thought it was ironic to hear the Talk640 crowd ripping on Ken Dryden (re his Op Ed piece in the Globe) for being a government fatcat this morning. 
Yeah the 640 crowd that flies all the Maple Leaf flags from their antennae and spends a good chunk of their disposable income on hockey and Tim Horton's.


----------



## Oldroe

I want well trained fireman with all the equipment to do the job as needed. When they get into there 50's I don't want them fired and out on the streets begging for food.

I want them to have a pension for all those years running into burning houses.


----------



## SpIcEz

Oldroe said:


> I want well trained fireman with all the equipment to do the job as needed. When they get into there 50's I don't want them fired and out on the streets begging for food.
> 
> I want them to have a pension for all those years running into burning houses.


Use one example, why don't you, of an emergency service and used it to prop up unions for 99% of the population.

You are living in a dream world. Where there is enough money for everyone to work 32 hour weeks, produce 20 hours of work and live for 50 years after retirement on the teat of public money.

What you aren't realizing is that the rest of us live in the real world, those of us who are being bled dry to pay for that bourgeois life for a select few. There isnt enough money to pay everyone in Canada those salaries and conditions.

I thought this was a semi-socialist country, where we SHARE the wealth around a little, not bleed 80% of the population to prop up 20% who managed to get a cushy public sector silver parachute kit.

...

BTW, I know about half a dozen firemen. They are an exception to the norm. Though we pay them full time jobs to train 40% of the time, work 10% of the time and dick around 50% of the time... they are an essential emergency service... we cant do otherwise. 

But you cant compare a fireman to a janitor who works in the offices of the CRA, or an electrician who works for Hydro-Quebec, or EVEN WORST a CASHIER who makes 25$ an hour working at SAQ (Quebec liquor store) and has a FULL PENSION PACKAGE. ****, they do the same job as minimum wage loblaws cashiers, but because they work for a crown corporation they live like KINGS.


----------



## sags

It appears there is.............

"Low wage capitalism with a dab of cronyism" as described by this article.

http://www.mybudget360.com/low-wage-capitalism-cronyism-jobs-report-top-job-sectors/

The cronyism could be applied to both the wealthy, and those fortunate to be members of strong unions.

(There are both public and private employee unions, strong and weak unions, and high paid union jobs and low paid union jobs).

For everyone else there is low wage capitalism.

What I infer from that is........unless you are wealthy...........it is better to belong to a strong union.

The top 10 job sectors in the US pay less than $35,000 per year.


----------



## fraser

Both. Good and Bad.

It very much depends on the union and on the employer.

The old adage is that employers get the union they deserve. Not certain that this applies in the public sector. But in my career I have seen lots of very poor employers and some very poor unions.

Not certain that one can make a blanket statement....unless your perspective happens to fall far to the right or far to the left.


----------



## HaroldCrump

It is highly offensive to Canadian taxpayers to say _employers get the union they deserve_.
We have a very highly paid and highly pampered public sector.
Yet, we get over-entitled and obnoxious public sector unions like the Teachers Union and the CUPE.
They are a slap on the face of Canadian tax payers.


----------



## fraser

Harold, IF you actually read my post, you would note that I had the proviso of 'not certain that this applies in the public sector'. 

In my working life, I have in fact seen public sector employers place their employees at physical and health risks simply to save operational dollars. It is the exception, not the rule but it has happened in the past and it will do doubt happen in the future.

This may surprise you, but not all public sector employees are sitting in warm, safe offices, working 9-5, getting above average wages. I think a little balance and objectivity is required. You might want to take a better look as some of those in the public sector who are individual contributors working in the public health and hospital environments as a start.


----------



## dogcom

Nemo2 said:


> How does that compare to, say, a hockey player getting $10 million a year?


Hockey players are part of the elite and yes they are way overpaid. Still however we need to address the way overpaid as well as overpaid public union people. As you know we are losing the middle class especially in the US and in place we have the ultra rich and the working poor.


----------



## none

Public union people are overpaid? Maybe some are. I applied for one public job last week and had to hold my nose because it didn't really pay 'market'. The whole package (at least for my lifestyle) and because I don't care that much about money makes it do-able though. Once you pass 70K more money doesn't really matter.


----------



## nathan79

It seems like most people are overpaid -- public or private. Or maybe I'm underpaid. I haven't decided yet.

Anyway, I agree that not many people need more than 70K. I'd be retiring at 45 if I made that.


----------



## fraser

My experience is that in the IT sector, the public sector underpays, even when pension benefits are taken into account. As of about three years ago the various levels in the public sector had great difficulty in hiring and in retaining good staff. I have no reason to believe that this has changed substantially. This had a very negative impact on their IT performance and strategies. It was one of the reasons why some public sector groups have outsourced all or portions of their IT planning, operations, and support.

I am not in any way implying that this is the case across the entire public sector or that it is not the case in other areas.


----------



## SpIcEz

About IT, what I have seen in a few different public work places, is that they will hire 3-4 people where 1-2 would be necessary.
And you are right, its possible that they are each underpaid, however I find they are under worked as well.

Sometimes when a new project comes along, they just hire more, without even checking if they have a dozen or more IT employees laying around doing practically nothing.
In fact, I have met to people in my career who have left a cushy 70k IT job with benefits for the government to work for less in the private sector just to not be bored out of their skulls.

3-4 people at 70k plus major benefits, trumps 1-2 people at 90k where tax payers are concerned.

Now, I don't know if its a Union problem or employer issue... but I have to say, I haven't seen this happen in non union private sector companies... food for thought.


----------



## none

My feeling is that support staff such as security, receptionist, janitors - more of the unskilled labour (although some receptionists are awesome) are at the upper pay scale of their profession in the public sector and highly skilled and technical are underpaid. I have no hard evidence to back this up beyond my experience.


----------



## nathan79

What does the average janitor in the public sector earn? I used to assume it was a low paying job, but I was surprised to read that some janitors are making $25+/hr. It makes me question my choices a little. Seems like a decent low stress job.


----------



## hystat

nathan79 said:


> What does the average janitor in the public sector earn? I used to assume it was a low paying job, but I was surprised to read that some janitors are making $25+/hr. It makes me question my choices a little. Seems like a decent low stress job.


I work in a provincial operation. All janitorial is contracted out. 
Any janitor hasn't been replaced by contract workers yet, is certainly not without stress waiting for that inevitability.


----------



## SpIcEz

hystat said:


> I work in a provincial operation. All janitorial is contracted out.
> Any janitor hasn't been replaced by contract workers yet, is certainly not without stress waiting for that inevitability.


Thats a smart move. Especially if there is a bidding process and the province makes sure it gets the best service for the lowest price.
There is no reason tax payers should be overpaying for janitorial work, just so the union can get a few more contributions. 

Its not the governments place to create jobs. Its the governments place to stimulate the economy with programs, legislation, and leadership which will in turn create jobs. (Also, spending tax payers money wisely should be priority #1)


----------



## Longwinston

SpIcEz said:


> Thats a smart move. Especially if there is a bidding process and the province makes sure it gets the best service for the lowest price.
> There is no reason tax payers should be overpaying for janitorial work, just so the union can get a few more contributions.
> 
> Its not the governments place to create jobs. Its the governments place to stimulate the economy with programs, legislation, and leadership which will in turn create jobs. (Also, spending tax payers money wisely should be priority #1)


Agreed and one more, to get out of the way as well. Smart regulation, not over regulation.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Jim Stanford of the Unifor union (recently merged with CAW) was on the CBC Bottom Line on Tues. and he was ruing the fact that the Federal Govt. has been pulling back stimulus in the last 2 years.
He said the govt. is not creating good jobs, such as "full time permanent jobs, with benefits and pensions".

They view the govt. (and thus the tax-payer) as simply job creating machines.
They have taken Keynes saying of "digging holes and filling them up" to an extreme.


----------



## Four Pillars

HaroldCrump said:


> Jim Stanford of the Unifor union (recently merged with CAW) was on the CBC Bottom Line on Tues. and he was ruing the fact that the Federal Govt. has been pulling back stimulus in the last 2 years.
> He said the govt. is not creating good jobs, such as "full time permanent jobs, with benefits and pensions".


I don't know why he is on there. He works for a union so of course he is always for anything that helps union members (the rest of the country be damned). Just doing his job, but no reason to have him on tv.


----------



## fraser

I have no issue with tendering out janitorial services. But public tender can sometimes mean low price, low service, low value. I saw this time and time again in public tenders where the lowest price may have been minimally compliant but the offering was by no means the best value proposition. This has always been a challenge with public sector tenders. And this value issue is in no way related to unions. It is an issue on all bids-union and non union.

When the company that I worked for bid, we bid to be lowest price and minimally compliant. The margin may have been as low as 4 percent. But we knew that we could substantially increase the margins to above 20 percent with change orders and untendered follow on business.

In the Vancouver area, one hospital in particular that I am aware contracted out their janitorial services to save money. No issue with that. But price competition over the next few years resulted in the contract price remaining constant or going down a little. What gave was quality. 

Four years on that particular hospital had a very serious problem with infection, cleanliness, etc. Part of the problem was identified as very substandard janitorial work. . The hospital contracted out but did not follow through with proper oversight and quality control. They were more concerned with cost savings notwithstanding the constant complaints from the medical and nursing staff.


----------



## sags

Private business does it cheaper..........not better.

Ontario privatized a brand new prison. The contracted company ran it into the ground before it returned back to the public sector.

Ontario's license bureau's are contracted out. Now there are long lineups from open to close.........with only a couple of clerks working.

I wonder if the "security guard" who let the guy with the "pipe bomb" on the plane in Vancouver was a contract employee?

Like most often.........you get what you pay for.


----------



## sags

HaroldCrump said:


> Jim Stanford of the Unifor union (recently merged with CAW) was on the CBC Bottom Line on Tues. and he was ruing the fact that the Federal Govt. has been pulling back stimulus in the last 2 years.
> He said the govt. is not creating good jobs, such as "full time permanent jobs, with benefits and pensions".
> 
> They view the govt. (and thus the tax-payer) as simply job creating machines.
> They have taken Keynes saying of "digging holes and filling them up" to an extreme.


I wish Jim Stanford wouldn't go on such shows.

He shouldn't be giving Harper any good ideas. He should make Harper come up with his own.

The Wall Street Journal recently commented that Canada's economy is "rolling over" and Canada may be heading towards the recession, that everyone thought was avoided.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/01/14/canadas-skidding/

If they are right.........is it better to spend putting people to work on infrastructure (digging holes in the ground and filling them up), or paying people to sit at home on unemployment and welfare?


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> If they are right.........is it better to spend putting people to work on infrastructure (digging holes in the ground and filling them up), or paying people to sit at home on unemployment and welfare?


None of the above.
The govt. should be creating an environment conducive to productivity, entrepreneurship, personal responsibility, and job creation by the *private sector*.

Unions prevent all of those things.
It is very easy for unions and hard left governments to fall into the trap of a constant cycle of taxation > govt. job creation > more taxation
That creates a lazy, slobbish, and entitled society (we have some recent examples in Europe).


----------



## none

Not true, the invisible hand of capitalism is most effective when it is well handcuffed so as not to hurt the rest of the body.

Europe generally has a better quality of life compared to North America: fewer murders, more doctors, more vacation etc etc.


----------



## HaroldCrump

none said:


> Not true, the invisible hand of capitalism is most effective when it is well handcuffed so as not to hurt the rest of the body.


There has to be a balance between complete, unfettered, wild west chaos and not handcuffing society and business so much that nothing can move.
We have swung too far towards complete bondage where the entitlement state is killing capitalism and growth.



> Europe generally has a better quality of life compared to North America: fewer murders, more doctors, more vacation etc etc.


The countries that I am referring to have between 20% to 35% unemployment rates.
Youth unemployment runs in the 40%+ range.
In other words, a permanent, multi-year vacation.


----------



## none

Well sure we could also point to US republican states that have lower union rates and fewer regulations are the most have-not states in the union.

If it wasn't for unions being so population 50 years ago I highly doubt you would have the quality of life you have now (and it wouldn't be better).


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> Private business does it cheaper..........not better.
> 
> Ontario privatized a brand new prison. The contracted company ran it into the ground before it returned back to the public sector.
> 
> Ontario's license bureau's are contracted out. Now there are long lineups from open to close.........with only a couple of clerks working.
> 
> I wonder if the "security guard" who let the guy with the "pipe bomb" on the plane in Vancouver was a contract employee?
> 
> Like most often.........you get what you pay for.


Cheaper is good when it comes to paying taxes. 

Re your cherry picked examples -People could have a field day coming up with government services that offer terrible service and at a horribly expensive cost. Remember, you get what you pay for. 

No, he was probably a guy in a union that couldn't be fired.


----------



## none

Could be but there are plenty of incompetent non-union workers. 

You would think that unions would make a concerted effort to ensure that incompetent people are *not* hired so they don't have to spend their time and union dues on those that are incompetent.


----------



## HaroldCrump

none said:


> Well sure we could also point to US republican states that have lower union rates and fewer regulations are the most have-not states in the union.


A lot of tax and regulation related matters are controlled federally in the United States.
Most of the financial, energy, and labor laws are federal.
Payroll taxes are federal as well.

When speaking of lower union rate states, keep in mind that the states experiencing greatest fiscal challenges are highly unionized states, such as Michigan, Ohio, California, Pennsylvania, etc.

In Canada, one of the largest have-not provinces is now Ontario.
I believe it has gone from receiving something like 2.9% of equalizations payments in 2009 to receiving like 20% in 2013.
That is what having heavy unionization, govt. jobs, and a fiscally profligate administration does.



> You would think that unions would make a concerted effort to ensure that incompetent people are *not* hired so they don't have to spend their time and union dues on those that are incompetent.


Unions are not concerned with that.
The union dues are mandatory and are like a payroll tax.
Unions are concerned with two things only - increasing their membership base (therefore more $$ coming in as dues), and extracting maximum possible rents from the rest of society (via govt. subsidies, bailouts, and compensation packages far in excess of market norms).


----------



## RBull

None that answer was a little bit of tongue in cheek on my part. I don't really have much idea on that. 

BTW, your reference to Europe surprised me given the state of affairs in many countries there. I hardly think now is a time to suggest we aspire to be like them. Many are digging out from or falling intothe abyss.


----------



## none

RBull said:


> None that answer was a little bit of tongue in cheek on my part. I don't really have much idea on that.
> 
> BTW, your reference to Europe surprised me given the state of affairs in many countries there. I hardly think now is a time to suggest we aspire to be like them. Many are digging out from or falling intothe abyss.


And for some, every individual is a millionaire: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/norw...rways-sovereign-wealth-fund/story?id=21488085

in my experience, the biggest difference between 'left' and 'right' is the former is more interested in long term investment while the latter is more interested in the immediate quick buck at the cost of the future.


----------



## none

Ontario has just recently become a 'have-not' province and Alberta has a very strong teachers union. You're hypothesis doesn't really hold up to the data.

I think you under estimate people running unions.


----------



## RBull

Let's just say we agree to disagree on your portrayal of right and left. 


And for some not so much:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...pen-puzzles-krugman-assessing-debts.html[/URL


----------



## fraser

Ontario has become a have not province because of poor stewardship of the provinces finances for many years, an unbelievably poorly managed electrical utility that has been grossly mismanaged for years, a changing economy, and the inability of the past and the current's Government to adapt policies to address the new economy. 

The notion that it is down to unions does not stand up to the reality.


----------



## HaroldCrump

none said:


> Ontario has just recently become a 'have-not' province


Yup, ever since the ultra liberal, union friendly administration has been running amok.
It took about 4 years for the present administration to completely screw up the finances, and once that is done, the equalization payments have been ballooning year over year.



> Alberta has a very strong teachers union. You're hypothesis doesn't really hold up to the data.


Well, at this rate Alberta will soon be a "have-not" province as well.
They are running a large deficit, and its getting worse.

I am not directly linking unionization to have-not status.
Obviously, "have" provinces also have unions.

But in general a social welfare oriented govt. (federal or provincial), regardless of party color, tends to over-tax its denizens, run progressively increasing deficits, spew a lot of rhetoric about "income re-distribution", and tends to favor unions, particularly those in the public sector.
We can see it in countries like France, Spain and in states/provinces like Ontario and California.


----------



## none

BY your reasoning then by this very anti-union federal government that we currently have we should be hemoraging cash. Instead, we are back in a deficit situation compared to when we had a more union friendly liberal government.

Again, the data does not support your hypothesis.


----------



## HaroldCrump

What anti-union federal govt.?
The federal govt. has kept its hands off the unions.

Reducing staff through attrition or superannuation in some limited areas (mostly front-line staff) does not make the federal govt. anti-union.
In fact, quite the contrary - spending on govt. staffing has increased substantially under this administration.

They have made some half-hearted, tentative moves to introduce some efficiency in the public service, such as the annual performance appraisals for all federal employees announced by Tony Clement last year.
But those measures have no hope of solving the core issue of over-compensation of unionized govt. employees.

No move has been made towards reducing the generous pensions, the sick leaves, and an entire host of benefits and sops.

The Harper govt. has been very benign towards unions.
Union supporters have no reason to complain.

If union clout and rent-seeking goes unchecked, over time, it will cause severe imbalances in all aspects of society - fiscal, political, and social.


----------



## fraser

Ontario's current problems have been brewing for years. It did not happen because of a specific Liberal or Conservative administration.. It happened because not one of them addressed the long term challenges. Probably because it was not top of mind with the voters. 

The long term became the short term. And now the short term has became today's reality. 

The notion that it is all down to the Liberal administration or to unions simply does not wash.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

We just heard a snippet on CBC 'As It Happens' from United Church ministry wanting to unionize with Unifor. As if the UC wasn't sinking fast enough, now my tax-deductible contributions to pay for union clergy? God help us.
http://www.theobserver.ca/2014/01/15/bullying-isolation-behind-creation-of-unifaith-a-community-chapter-in-countrys-largest-private-sector-union


----------



## Longwinston

none said:


> BY your reasoning then by this very anti-union federal government that we currently have we should be hemoraging cash. Instead, we are back in a deficit situation compared to when we had a more union friendly liberal government.
> 
> Again, the data does not support your hypothesis.


Obviously unions are not the only constant in your little spiel there. We went through a collapse of the world wide financial system and if a recall the left was up in arms because Harper didn't spend more. You can't have it both ways

Also, look up hemorrhaging in the dictionary. You used it wrong.


----------



## Longwinston

none said:


> Well sure we could also point to US republican states that have lower union rates and fewer regulations are the most have-not states in the union.
> 
> If it wasn't for unions being so population 50 years ago I highly doubt you would have the quality of life you have now (and it wouldn't be better).


Really? I submit Texas and California for your consideration. Heck, look at Detroit. That was basically death by union/ democrats.

I think the real issue is pubic sector unions. There needs to be changes there to check their power in my opinion.


----------



## none

Longwinston said:


> Obviously unions are not the only constant in your little spiel there. We went through a collapse of the world wide financial system and if a recall the left was up in arms because Harper didn't spend more. You can't have it both ways
> 
> Also, look up hemorrhaging in the dictionary. You used it wrong.


That was the point. The simple memes: 'ALL UNIONS ARE BACK BLARG!" are ridiculous and simplistic. Some are bad, some are great - as a whole I believe the Canada and the US is far better for having them (I attribute them to the creation of the middle class)


----------



## none

Longwinston said:


> Really? I submit Texas and California for your consideration. Heck, look at Detroit. That was basically death by union/ democrats.
> 
> I think the real issue is pubic sector unions. There needs to be changes there to check their power in my opinion.


Umm.. those are really bad examples... Texas sucks and has simply leeched low wage jobs from other states (and b/c of poor regulation is not a great place to live) compared to california where decent and fair taxation has put it back on track after the republicans tried to kill it with silly overly democratic control of state finances. To his credit, Schwarzenegger did a great job all things considered.

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/economy/2...-us-hasnt-seen-expected-great-recovery-but-c/


----------



## sags

The United Church is organizing ? Toyota is organizing ? Walmart workers are trying to organize ?

Working people have been abandoned by business and their government.

Union organization is the only way they can collectively fight back.

People are recognizing the value of forming a union.

Big business, the wealthy, the elite, the powerful.........have pushed people to the edge............just as they did in the past.

They didn't learn from history, and social unrest including increased union activity will be the results.

"Take this job and shove it"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzGoDtmTllg


----------



## dogcom

Does it really matter public or private sector. In the end the longer something goes on the more politics or greed enters in and we are all the losers. Take away the unions and some other constant will fall to greed and politics. Sorry i have learned in life that there is no better way and that is why we have constitutions and regulations.

In many countries bribes is the way everything works and you can forget unions or private sector or rule of law. I just can't understand why most feel that just hiring workers for the lowest pay possible is the answer to all our problems when criminals and exploiters are waiting on every corner.

To add another point why not hire students willing to learn to work for nothing in companies to get experience to replace the skilled guys that are there now. Dog eat dog and lets all go to the bottom together.


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> The United Church is organizing ? Toyota is organizing ? Walmart workers are trying to organize ?
> 
> Working people have been abandoned by business and their government.
> 
> Union organization is the only way they can collectively fight back.
> 
> People are recognizing the value of forming a union.
> 
> Big business, the wealthy, the elite, the powerful.........have pushed people to the edge............just as they did in the past.
> 
> They didn't learn from history, and social unrest including increased union activity will be the results.
> 
> "Take this job and shove it"
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzGoDtmTllg


Who are these "working people" that the left frequently want to portray, as if refers to *everyone* who isn't in the category of wealthy, elite etc. ?

And how about all those who don't see any value in having or belonging to a union - or do you think you are speaking for them too? Plenty of people recognize and experience the drawbacks with forming and belonging to a union.

How have "working people" been abandoned by government and business? I am a "working person" and I don't feel that way..... Other than a primary duty the government has abandoned with their obligation to taxpayers in negotiating with their own public unions by rolling over with overly generous wages and benefits- that the majority of Canadians heavily subsidize. Wages and benefits many "working people" could only dream about. 

Not only wasn't I "pushed to the edge" by big business as you characterize, but I am very thankful to have been a valuable part of it. The chance for growth, opportunity and reward in a very entrepreneurial environment, and for the opportunity to operate my own business for years was fantastic. 

Why don't the left stop pretending to speak for all "working people". 

I'm okay with private unions forming if they want to. I generally don't agree with them in principle since they diminish the incentive to excel and protect the lowest common denominator. Companies generally get what they deserve, however we should not allow this in the public service. There is no need, as all it has done is to lose reality with the whole concept of supply and demand and value of work in the marketplace.


----------



## HaroldCrump

dogcom said:


> Does it really matter public or private sector.


I think it matters, as tax payers.
Public sector unions are the worst of the lot.
Organizations like the CUPE have been running a parallel economy for years, siphoning off real income and wealth from the private sector and appropriating it for themselves.
The cost of their outrageous compensation and benefits (incl. but not limited to pensions) is a major contributor in large debt/deficits at all 3 levels of government.

To make matters worse, they behave like bullies and spoilt brats.
They hold tax-payers to ransom by striking, rolling work stoppages, etc.

What we saw about the OPG, Hydro One, and a couple of other agencies compensation programs last month is just the tip of the iceberg.
The decadent excesses are rampant, and endemic throughout the public sector, coast to coast, regardless of the color of the current political party running the administration.


----------



## Oldroe

It's all right to be happy being all you can be.

Just also be happy making 25-30% less that the owners just fold and stick in their pockets.


----------



## Nemo2

Oldroe said:


> It's all right to be happy being all you can be.
> 
> Just also be happy making 25-30% less that the owners just fold and stick in their pockets.


Simple solution.....start your own business and be an Own(er).


----------



## HaroldCrump

If 25% is the profit margin in a business, you are saying that we should legislate and eliminate profit margins from businesses?
i.e. a business should not be making profits? It should be run purely on a cost recovery basis?

I recall some other folks that said that...such as Mao, Castro, Lenin...didn't turn out particularly well for them.


----------



## Oldroe

Now Harold I know that you read and comprehend. That's 25% additional profit made off there workers that they can well afford to pay.

Union or non union cost of manufacturing or construction are the same. So it's the same as stealing.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Oldroe said:


> So it's the same as stealing.


...and what the public sector unions are doing at OPG, Hydro One, etc. is not?
They are laughing at the faces of tax payers and continuing to plunder the public coffers.
The _only_ reason this _systematic pillage _is working is because of the backing of unions.

Secondly, to use your numbers, you are saying that non unionized businesses are making _additional_ 30% profits, over and above normal profit rates in the industry?
That would put their profit in the range of 50% - 60%
I don't think even highly profitable corporations like Goldman Sachs or Apple have those kinds of profit margins.


----------



## buaya

OPG, Hydro One are technically not owned by the government. Mike Harris wanted to privatised them, but Ernie Els got cold feet and now they are a hybrid. It is the same as Orange.


----------



## RBull

Oldroe said:


> It's all right to be happy being all you can be.
> 
> Just also be happy making 25-30% less that the owners just fold and stick in their pockets.


I can't understand what you are saying. Can you translate the last sentence?


----------



## HaroldCrump

Hot off the press:

_*TTC veteran employee posts bitter rant on YouTube*_

Doesn't speak highly of union membership and job satisfaction in unionized environments.
But does say a thing or two about the sense of entitlement.

Note how the individual in the video keeps insisting that he is getting _nothing_ in retirement after 31 years of unionized service.
Despite the fact that he is probably retiring with a handsome pension, better than 75% of workers, and a sick leave encashment bonanza.


----------



## none

On the contrary Herold. If you did some due diligence you would see that he has had VERY high job satisfaction from his unionized job if you only took the 6 seconds needed to read the comments. Or did you, and as per usual, ignore all information to the contrary so as not to undermine your anti-union thesis? 

"_I am very thankfull for all the TTC has provided for me and my family. Im thankfull for all the union has done for my brothers and sisters. I was very upset as u can tell by the video after my years of dedicated service. I was always ready to do my job and help others in need. To finish my career that way broke my heart and made me very bitter. Everthing I have today is because of the TTC. This video relates to my last day on the job. I have been contacted by my superintendent and recieved a VERY heartfull appolgy which I will accept. I believe him to be very sincere and I have had great respect for him through the years and have aways felt that he earned his position through on the job experience. Again thank you for all the TTC and Locall 113 has done for me and my family. I can retire very comfortable even thou I was not ready to retire. I had so much to still offer the TTC to pay back for all the training i recieved but felt the past 6 months that i was not wanted any longer. My skills were being wasted on meaningless tasks and felt it was time to move. Thx again for all the great memories. ﻿"_


----------



## Beaver101

HaroldCrump said:


> Hot off the press:
> 
> _*TTC veteran employee posts bitter rant on YouTube*_
> 
> Doesn't speak highly of union membership and job satisfaction in unionized environments.
> *But does say a thing or two about the sense of entitlement.*
> 
> Note how the individual in the video keeps insisting that he is getting _nothing_ in retirement after 31 years of unionized service.
> Despite the fact that he is probably retiring with a handsome pension, better than 75% of workers, and a sick leave encashment bonanza.


 ... +1 ... waaaah, waaah, waaah, sniff, sniff, poor baby no party for him. :rolleyes2:


----------



## HaroldCrump

none said:


> if you only took the 6 seconds needed to read the comments.


If you only watched for 1 minute, you would have heard what he truly says.
Individual in question clearly says : _the union don't give a crap about you_ - those are pretty strong words.
Then he says : _What do union employees get - nothing._ (around 0.53 secs).
Soon after : _Local 113, Paid union dues for 31 years, no phone call, no nothing_.

And finally, towards the end (3:12) - _What do I get from my union - nothing_.

Did you also miss how he spews venom against his co-workers - someone named Glenn, and a deputy superintendent.

The entire video is full of disgruntled, sorry ranting against his job and co-workers.

I have never, ever said similar words about any of my employers over the years, across 4 countries on 2 continents.

As for the comments, those are clearly posted later as an afterthought, perhaps a damage control mechanism.
Video was posted on 4th Jan, and the comment was posted on 10th Jan.
I would guess what once his cool prevailed and he realized all the venom he had spewed against his employer and co-workers, he tried to make up for it by writing that namby pamby passage, sob sob.

There is a clear and stark contrast between his words and attitude in the video vs. the comments.


----------



## praire_guy

My take is that he is ticked off because there was no send off for him. Possibly because he wasn't well liked is my guess.


----------



## SpIcEz

buaya said:


> OPG, Hydro One are technically not owned by the government. Mike Harris wanted to privatised them, but Ernie Els got cold feet and now they are a hybrid. It is the same as Orange.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrne

Last updated on Jan. 16th 2014. 

Its a crown corporation, sole shareholder is the Government of Ontario... Your statement is wrong and I dont understand what point you where trying to make. Tax payers of Ontario are basically the shareholders of Hydro One and OPG.


----------



## none

That's what I got too. I can understand that - it's amazing what a simple thank you can do. Especially when it's accompanied by cake, balloons and strippers bussed in from Montreal!! Woot Woot!


----------



## HaroldCrump

SpIcEz said:


> Tax payers of Ontario are basically the shareholders of Hydro One and OPG.


Those tax payers are also the rate payers.
Get screwed twice.


----------



## sags

The way I see it, unions already exist. The legal mechanism for people to organize themselves into a collective already exists.

It is the political "right" , including the big business lobby, who want to take those rights away from others.

Don't want to work in a unionized workplace...........don't apply for the job.

Some people who don't belong to a union because they don't see any benefit to them.........are the same ones complaining union workers earn more, and should have the advantages of being in a union taken away.

Duh............why do they think people unionized.............to earn less?

The statistics are clear and well understood.

People who work in unionized environments earn higher wages and have better benefits.

Right wing philosophy is designed to favour the wealthy elite........not the working class.

While stock markets and assets rose dramatically, and the wealth gap grew larger..........the working class has not enjoyed any of the so called "recovery".

More people in the US are on food stamps than ever before. High rates of poverty and high unemployment remains. Wages have stalled and people have record debt levels.

If ever there was a time for people to organize themselves into unions...........it is now.

It isn't an accident that the countries with the healthiest economies, like Germany and Scandanavia are highly unionized, and socially oriented.


----------



## Dave

Sags, honestly kid, you've gotta be kidding. Germany is not socially oriented. Economically, it is at the opposite end of the spectrum from France, that is your typical socialist leftist mess. See how it is working out for them.

I do not like unions. They are here to protect the lazy and the incompetent. Guaranteed advancement with extra seniority and less brain cells. How about advancement for those who are talented and smart instead ? I understand the need for unions at the beginnig of the 19th century during the industrial revolution where working conditions were horrid and inhumane, but right now their sense of entitelment is downright embarassing. I travelled to places where there are very few unions left and the service industry is outstanding because people actually are afraid of loosing their job if they bullsh**t around. 

Dave


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> The way I see it, unions already exist. The legal mechanism for people to organize themselves into a collective already exists. *Yes...the point is?
> *
> It is the political "right" , including the big business lobby, who want to take those rights away from others. * Yes big business has an obligation to maximize profits to shareholders. Many businesses operate efficiently, safely and with happy employees....without unions. Don't you enjoy the returns on your investments from these same companies or would you prefer they try to encourage unionization? Unions want to take away more profits from the owners or the taxpayers and provide lower efficiency in return. *
> 
> Don't want to work in a unionized workplace...........don't apply for the job. D*on't want to work in a non unionized environment...don't take the job.*
> 
> Some people who don't belong to a union because they don't see any benefit to them.........are the same ones complaining union workers earn more, and should have the advantages of being in a union taken away. *Some people in a union only because they see the benefit- higher wages, higher pensions, more protection from the union and then complain the most when they see their job going elsewhere.*
> 
> Duh............why do they think people unionized.............to earn less? *No, to do less and extract more. *
> 
> The statistics are clear and well understood. *Same here.
> *
> People who work in unionized environments earn higher wages and have better benefits. *Yes, and many of them are public servants that can thank the the taxpayer.
> *
> Right wing philosophy is designed to favour the wealthy elite........not the working class.* Right wing philosophy is designed for people who can help themselves. As I said in my previous post who are these working class you are speaking for? I'm the working class, not the wealthy elite and you don't speak for me.
> *
> While stock markets and assets rose dramatically, and the wealth gap grew larger..........the working class has not enjoyed any of the so called "recovery". *Isn't your investment account higher than it was 5 years ago?*
> 
> More people in the US are on food stamps than ever before. High rates of poverty and high unemployment remains. Wages have stalled and people have record debt levels.
> 
> If ever there was a time for people to organize themselves into unions...........it is now. *For some people the only time to join a union is never. Unions don't create jobs. Right wing builders do. It is the responsibility of the individual to manage their personal debt levels. *
> 
> It isn't an accident that the countries with the healthiest economies, like Germany and Scandanavia are highly unionized, and socially oriented. *Have a link at the link I placed a page or so back in response to none re Scandinavia. Unions aren't the reason Germany is doing well. *


RBull


----------



## fraser

..........While stock markets and assets rose dramatically, and the wealth gap grew larger..........the working class has not enjoyed any of the so called "recovery". Isn't your investment account higher than it was 5 years ago?



Yes, actually it is. And FY 2012 and FY 2013 were particularly good. Most especially the US based equities/funds. 

And even more so when compared to the inflation rate.


----------



## SpIcEz

You know what words I never here from unions, union workers and people who defend them?

Dedication
Motivation
Efficiency
Productivity
Quality
Talent
Hard Work
Creativity

You know the words I do hear?

Higher wages
Better Benefits
Capitalist pigs
Elite right wingers

-----------------------------

Now look at those 2 lists... tell me, if YOU where an employer... which words would you want to hear from an employee?

Once you cover list number one, go up to your boss and ask for a raise, because you deserve it. And you know what? YOU WILL GET IT.
And if you don't, you change jobs, until you do.
Then you'll earn those higher wages and benefits, not because of union bullying but because you have EARNED IT and you DESERVE IT.

Then you can be proud of yourself.

What pride is there in doing a half assed job for 30 years? Union people think they deserve something for having dragged there asses for 30 years at the same place... just because... just because they showed up in the morning.
They aren't the working class. I AM, WE ARE, Those of us who actually work.

Look at France... its in a **** hole, because everyone is union working 32.5 hours weeks, with 6 weeks vacation a year and producing 20 hours of actual work.

IT JUST IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS A SOCIETY!!!


----------



## dsaljurator

If you're an employer and you actually treat your workers well, then they won't want to unionize in the first place. Unfourtunately, those companies are the exception, not the rule.

The concept of 'changing jobs until you do' is completly impossible for a large part of the workforce. It sure sounds nice though.

That said, IMO, some unions these days are pushing too far. The solvency of the company has to come before some things. If the company goes under, no one gets paid. The flip side of this is that I think that executive compensations is completely out of control too.


----------



## valueindexer

Some unions, maybe not all, work hard to make sure that people aren't rewarded for things like good work, effort, skill, intelligence, and creativity (we can leave productivty out because it's not always the #1 goal). Instead they are rewarded for things like the date they started working at that organization. Recognition for individual contributions is a very important part of peoples selfconfidence and motivation. In many ways more important than money. By removing that a union can make everyone hate their work. The ones who have other options leave. The ones who don't figure that since they hate their job so much, they should be paid more. Result: less work at higher costs and everyone is miserable. Call me crazy but I'd like to think we can do more than that.



dsaljurator said:


> The concept of 'changing jobs until you do' is completly impossible for a large part of the workforce. It sure sounds nice though.


Why is it completely impossible? Because no one will give them the salary they want on the basis of their skills when they have to negotiate individually? If companies that aren't put under pressure don't see any value in having them around, why not just cut out a few layers of management and give them welfare? Are unions a plot to get people to go to make-believe jobs so they're too busy to get in trouble? Sounds like a right-wing conspiracy


----------



## valueindexer

sags said:


> The way I see it, unions already exist. The legal mechanism for people to organize themselves into a collective already exists. It is the political "right" , including the big business lobby, who want to take those rights away from others.


So unions give people more rights - how many organizations are there where employees said "we're happy with the way things are going and we trust management, so don't need the union anymore and we can stop paying fees, hiring union organizers, and making political contributions and just enjoy higher incomes". The unions wouldn't try to stop that because they want to give the employees more rights? Hey maybe they could even give some employees the right to not join the union even if others want to. More rights are better! Right?


----------



## valueindexer

dsaljurator said:


> The flip side of this is that I think that executive compensations is completely out of control too.


How many executives do you think go to their customers and say "we'll shut down your business if you don't sign this contract right now" and then get rewarded and stay in the same position for 30 years because of their behavior? You may not like what private businesses do sometimes but they are mainly based on people agreeing to an offer by their own choice. So you have to think, if people are completely willing to pay them that much and when you try to take more by force you can't even get a fraction of that is it time to change your approach? Don't tell the noble and ancient brotherhood of course, they'll think someone poisoned your mind if you're considering earning more than everyone else.


----------



## sags

All this talk about paternal, benevolent employers, who recognize aspiring talent and reward a diligent work effort, remind me of the exact same things that were bandied about when Toyota started building assembly plants in Canada.

"Nobody needs a union" they said........... "We will take care of you"

And they did........for awhile........to keep the union out.

But here we are a few years later, and enough workers have signed membership cards to vote themselves a union.

http://www.therecord.com/news-story...on-vote-in-cambridge-and-woodstock-factories/

You don't often hear of workers voting to de-certify their union, unless they are moving to another union.

I wonder why that is, if union membership is so confining to their workplace enjoyment.


----------



## Longwinston

none said:


> Umm.. those are really bad examples... Texas sucks and has simply leeched low wage jobs from other states (and b/c of poor regulation is not a great place to live) compared to california where decent and fair taxation has put it back on track after the republicans tried to kill it with silly overly democratic control of state finances. To his credit, Schwarzenegger did a great job all things considered.
> 
> http://www.scpr.org/blogs/economy/2...-us-hasnt-seen-expected-great-recovery-but-c/


Hahaha, California, despite all it's built in advantages is almost bankrupt and Texas leads the country in job creation.
You are funny


----------



## HaroldCrump

Longwinston said:


> Hahaha, California, despite all it's built in advantages is almost bankrupt and Texas leads the country in job creation.


There are actually quite a few similarities between Ontario and California.
In terms of their fiscal state, the reckless spending of their respective governments, and of course the attitude towards unions (overly accommodative).

_*Ontario worse than California: Province faces crisis due to 78% jump in spending*_

^ _The reality is that Ontario’s indebtedness is significantly worse than the poster-child for bad public finances, California._

_*Ontario heading way of California *_

^ _Another year has come and gone and Ontario’s weak public finances remain largely unchanged._


----------



## SpIcEz

sags,

Seriously, this article is what you bring up as the shinning beacon of Unions?

Have you read it?

- Unions have tried to get in on many occasions and never have managed to;
- So this time, they are taking their time to "bully" enough people into signing membership cards to get to a vote;
- They say the drive is being led by inside the plant... honestly I doubt that;

- _"Dias said although wages at Toyota are comparable with unionized plants, other issues are concerning the employees..."_ So, they are very well paid (Non issue #1)
- _"there is a large temporary contract workforce"_ Who are very well paid, and eventually can be turn into full time, Toyota just doesnt want to add full time employees and then have to fire them. They have offered full time employment to 900 temp workers last year. Out of 6500, thats close to 14% of the workforce, its not insignificant. (Non issue #2)
- _"Toyota is UNILATERALLY changing its pension plan"_ Get this, FOR NEW HIRES... oh noooeesss, they are soooo evil, they are honoring the pension plans for existing employees and changing it for new ones. OMG DIE TOYOTA DIE. They are changing from defined benefit to defined contribution plan where employee and employer put in funds (still better than most of the working class in Canada.

_*"We have been making cars since Nov. 30, 1988, with no layoffs, no strikes, no lockouts, no union fees and a competitive compensation system and a history of mutual respect and trust. So we believe our system works," (Toyota) said.*_

I dont see it sags, I dont see what the fuss is about. All I see is union rep talking points.

This article (EVERYONE should read it), is EXACTLY what is wrong with unions. They just want to get in the door, to get contributions and show their members in other shops, LOOK we LIBERATED another bunch of slave workers. Its about propaganda and control of the work force in a whole area, I mean, you cant have a hold out now can you? Doesnt look good.


----------



## fraser

Who is responsible for the financial operation of the Province of Ontario? The Government or the Unions, or the Private Sector.

We elect our Government to lead. Government after Government in Ontario has failed to lead-Liberal and Conservative. 

Blaming this mess on unions, private industry, or anyone else makes no sense whatsoever. 

The blame falls squarely on those who set the fiscal direction, the budget, and have the legislative power. 

The story line of the unions being responsible for the demise is, well simply silly.


----------



## sags

Unionization is often a benefit for business efficiency.

_"Another explanation is the 'shock effect' hypothesis (Slichter 1941; Slichter, Healy and Livernash 1960). The arrival of unions in a workplace spurs management to adopt standard and formal procedures for a whole range of personnel activities such as hiring, promotion, record keeping, communication, and so on. By extension, therefore, unionized firms should be more efficient, given their use of formal systems of modern management. In contrast, non-union firms may engage in more ad hoc practices since no union is forcing management to be more systematic. Indeed,* unionization is associated with lower turnover*, both voluntary and involuntary (Freeman 1981, Brown and Medoff 1978, and Clark 1980)."
_

_"One way for unions to create a sustainable wage premium would be to organize all (or nearly all) the employers in a given industry. They could then *'take wages out of competition'* by forcing all (or most of) the employers to pay the same wage."
_

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/00902/4168247-eng.html

Why unions are necessary for the economy to thrive.

http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-unions-wages-2013-8


----------



## none

Why do you guys keep spouting off about how California finances are all screwed up?? It has a multimillion dollar surplus for crying out loud - know what you're talking about. Yeash, if the current Feds could manage their budget so well!

Yes, it has debt but that's from the over-democracitation of the budget process - which Arnold actually fixed.

So now, we have a state that has strong unions and is one of the top formers in the states (and who's GDP is relatively close to Canada's). What other myth are you guys going to use to keep up your ridiculous 'all unions are bad' lame argument?


----------



## Longwinston

From 2000 to 2013 job growth was 2.6% in California and 19.7% in Texas.
California has the highest poverty rate in the USA at 23.5%.
This is higher than Texas' proverty rate by 42%.
Texas' real personal income is 4.6% higher than in California.
Texas and California have common climates, immigration and are comparable in size.
6.1% unemployment in Texas, 9.8% in California.
California has the lowest bond rating in the USA. 
California has the highest taxes in the USA. 

Jerry brown "balanced" the budget by hiking taxes and slashing spending to education. But they haven't even started to address their unfunded pension liabilities.

"The department of finance has said California’s debt was paid down to less than $28-billion (U.S.). But that doesn’t include government employee pension and health benefits that have been promised but not funded. Stanford University estimates that unfunded pension liabilities are as much as $497-billion.

Meantime, a report by the Pew Center suggests that unfunded state retiree liabilities are $77-billion and growing. Most agree that until California deals with these two areas, it will only be pecking away at its monstrous fiscal challenges. It’s difficult to imagine state legislators not having to deliver some extremely unpleasant news to tens of thousands of government employees in the coming years."

In short, anyone saying that California is economically better than Texas is either has been in a coma since 1985 or doesn't want to get it for partisan reasons.

Ignorant or a hack.
Pick


----------



## none

Not true. Keep it up Hannity.


----------



## Nemo2

Or Forbes? http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...al-facts-behind-the-lone-star-states-miracle/


----------



## sags

*36 Reasons Why You Should Thank a Union*

Weekends
All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
Paid Vacation
FMLA
Sick Leave
Social Security
Minimum Wage
Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
8-Hour Work Day
Overtime Pay
Child Labor Laws
Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
40 Hour Work Week
Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
Unemployment Insurance
Pensions
Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
Employer Health Care Insurance
Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
Wrongful Termination Laws
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Whistleblower Protection Laws
Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
Sexual Harassment Laws
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Holiday Pay
Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
Privacy Rights
Pregnancy and Parental Leave
Military Leave
The Right to Strike
Public Education for Children
Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)
Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...Union-36-Ways-Unions-Have-Improved-Your-Life#

Do the anti-union people want to return to the good old days........before unions?

_"Corporations used to work employees 80+ hours a week, offer no breaks, hire children, offer horrid, unsanitary work conditions, paid literally next to nothing, and even murder. Not murder with a pen like they do today, but actual murder. They basically did whatever they wanted."_

It's too bad that basic school education doesn't include the history of unions and the long and bloody fight for basic worker rights. Too many people have no idea how past generations suffered with their blood, sweat and tears to give them the rights and benefits they take for granted today. What would their grandparents and great grandparents say to them today?

Study the Great Depression, and the migration of dirt poor farmers across the drought laden mid-west to California.......only to be taken advantage of by big business when they got there. 

Major social changes occur when the population is backed into a corner and has nothing left to lose.

For tens of millions of people in North America alone..........they have already reached that point.


----------



## Longwinston

none said:


> Not true. Keep it up Hannity.


Wow, that has to be the lamest retort, ever. 

Sorry, if you just want to live in fantasy land, you should have just told me from the start so I didn't waste my time trying to educate you. You can't educate the willingly ignorant.

Toodles.


----------



## SpIcEz

sags

I dont think anyone is contesting the benefits unions have brought to us in the early and mid 20th century.
They where necessary and they did a lot of good.

Thing is, we are in the 21st century now and the pendulum (in many cases, but not all) has swung full swing in the opposite direction.
There are labour laws now, not perfect, but they do offer a minimum of protection.

You have your head buried in the sand if you cant see that Unions have fostered an environment of laziness and entitlement.


----------



## Dave

SpIcEz said:


> sags
> 
> I dont think anyone is contesting the benefits unions have brought to us in the early and mid 20th century.
> They where necessary and they did a lot of good.
> 
> Thing is, we are in the 21st century now and the pendulum (in many cases, but not all) has swung full swing in the opposite direction.
> There are labour laws now, not perfect, but they do offer a minimum of protection.
> 
> You have your head buried in the sand if you cant see that Unions have fostered an environment of laziness and entitlement.



+1000

OK, no more waisting time on this thread


----------



## warp

Oldroe said:


> I want well trained fireman with all the equipment to do the job as needed. When they get into there 50's I don't want them fired and out on the streets begging for food.
> 
> I want them to have a pension for all those years running into burning houses.



Agreed.....Firefighters are the ONLY Public Sector employees who desire and are entitiled to their pensions.

Most of the rest are basically stealing from the rest of us, with their benefits and ridiculous pensions which, as of this date are "off balance sheet"...meaning that they are unpaid for, and unaccounted for. I have read that this unfunded liability right now stands at over a Trillion dollars!
This will lead to massive financial problems down the line for this country.

It's disgraceful that no politician will stand up to these union demands, and pony up to the chaos they have caused. Then again most politicians are just biding time until they get their own ludicrously rich pensions.


----------



## warp

Sorry..."desire" should have read "deserve"...in my last post......


----------



## RBull

^you can go in and edit that.


----------



## sags

SpIcEz said:


> sags
> 
> I dont think anyone is contesting the benefits unions have brought to us in the early and mid 20th century.
> They where necessary and they did a lot of good.
> 
> Thing is, we are in the 21st century now and the pendulum (in many cases, but not all) has swung full swing in the opposite direction.
> There are labour laws now, not perfect, but they do offer a minimum of protection.
> 
> You have your head buried in the sand if you cant see that Unions have fostered an environment of laziness and entitlement.


Your assertion that unions used to be useful for workers, but aren't in today's environment.......ignores a couple of key factors.

1) The gains from past union activity are enshrined in legislation that can be changed at the whim of politicians, as in the example of "right to work" legislation.

2) Corporations are always testing the legislative strength of the gains unions have made, as in the example of General Motors arbitrarily reducing or eliminating long held promises to their management retirees for life insurance and health coverage. Only a class action lawsuit and the intervention of the courts prevented the broken promises, and that decision favoring the retirees was primarily based on the fact that GM had continually reiterated the benefit schedule to their management retirees over a period of decades, in GM published materials. 

This is a classic example of how much a big corporation values the contributions of it's "non union" employees

http://www.thestar.com/business/per...ong_to_cut_retirees_benefits_court_rules.html

3) The weak "jobless" recovery has created a massive pool of unemployed people desperate for full time work. This in turn has created an unbalanced labor market where companies can depress wages and benefits..........and seek to reverse previous gains. This has already been well underway for some time, as companies attempt to extort "concessions" from their employees under the threat of losing their jobs. 

Corporations extort governments and local communities in the same manner......pitting one against the other for the greatest "subsidies" in cash and lower taxes........under the threat of moving the factory.

4) Government legislation covers only the barest minimum of worker rights. Contractual language between unions and companies covers a breadth of issues not addressed by government legislation. The right to "post" for another job opening within the company, the right to "grieve" an unjust decision by a low level supervisor or manager, seniority rights, and severance pay and benefits that extend well past the government minimums are just a few examples.

As for unions promoting a level of laziness and entitlement beyond the average in the workplace, I have yet to see anything beyond "opinions" that would provide any statistical evidence of that.

In contrast, the studies I have read have shown that productivity by union members is higher than that of their non union counterpart, due in part to better training, lower employee turnover rates, and higher overall job satisfaction.

Here is a link to charts comparing union membership to productivity in different countries.

Note that the US has the lowest union membership by far and their productivity levels don't reflect any major improvement as a result.

http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20070620/


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> *36 Reasons Why You Should Thank a Union*
> 
> Weekends
> All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
> Paid Vacation
> ...


We don't need unions for any of the above.
Weekend? Paid Vacation? Holiday Pay?
Seriously, we need unions for that?

Unless someone has been playing Rip van Winkle since 1850, we don't need unions for any of that.

You think malpractice is any less in a unionized environment?
Wake up.
Remember the City of Toronto workers browsing (shall we say) _explicit_ websites _in the office - during work hours_?
Sexual harassment? - already forgotten RCMP scandal?

I will grant you the point about pensions and right to strike.
Yes, indeed we need unions for that.
There is no other legal way to hold a province/city to ransom (strike) or to extract ever increasing rents from society (public sector pensions)


----------



## fraser

So, how do people with a low opinion of unions feel about self governing bodies? There are many of then and many have the same characteristics as unions.


----------



## HaroldCrump

What do you mean self-governing bodies? Like condominium boards, charities, etc.?


----------



## Oldroe

A friend is CUPE makes $17/hr. Think you would classify him as a handy man/landlord. They look after about 100 location for special needs people to live on there own.

So the crew does plumping, drywall, railings,handicap acess, snow removal and just about anything else that comes up. These are all Gov. owned locations.

So no big pensions, no big salary.


----------



## fraser

Self governing boards....md,s, dentists, lawyers, etc. Groups recognized by legislation to set their own standards and police themselves. Many determine the fee schedule for their members.


----------



## RBull

^define fee schedule, setting of standards and policing.


----------



## dsaljurator

valueindexer said:


> Why is it completely impossible? Because no one will give them the salary they want on the basis of their skills when they have to negotiate individually? If companies that aren't put under pressure don't see any value in having them around, why not just cut out a few layers of management and give them welfare? Are unions a plot to get people to go to make-believe jobs so they're too busy to get in trouble? Sounds like a right-wing conspiracy


Because a large part of the workforce live paycheque to paycheque and cannot afford to quit a job just because they don't like it.


----------



## SpIcEz

dsaljurator said:


> Because a large part of the workforce live pay-cheque to pay-cheque and cannot afford to quit a job just because they don't like it.


To a certain degree, I understand this point.

However in the public sector... I don't really care.

I want my government to pay a fair wage, not to OVERPAY (just in case). If the employee is not happy, change jobs/go to private sector. 
If you don't have enough money ahead... tough, NOT MY PROBLEM. Because you live off of MY PRODUCTIVITY (and other tax payers). 

Why should the government be stuck with an unhappy non productive employee because of union protection? Taxpayers are paying for that, OUT kick him out, OUT OUT OUT. 
We work our asses off to pay our taxes, to get services. BE EFFICIENT.

*Do you people get this? I WORKED to make MONEY and part of that MONEY was paid to the government in TAXES to pay for SERVICES. Bad management of tax revenue is INEXCUSABLE. *

Now... I do expect the government to pay a fair wage and good enough benefits (good enough, not ABOVE ANYTHING FATHOMABLE elsewhere).
Besides, if they don't keep up to date on wages, people will work in the private sector instead of the government.


----------



## fraser

The college of dentists , for example, establish a fee schedule for dentists in their respective province. A dentist must be licensed by the college in order to practice. Most charge the schedule. Any complaints are dealt with by the college-who have the right by law to discipline and where appropriate suspend members from practicing. Same with many other self governing bodies. 

Many years ago when Tommy Douglas brought in Medicare in Saskatewan, the College of Physicians and Surgeons went on strike. The pulled their services and most members refused to see patients. The strike was broken-tommy Douglas had lined up doctors from the UK to take their place. Sounds very union like to me. Lawyers in some provinces have threatened to withdraw legal aid services until the Govt increases their compensation.
Sounds very union like to me!


----------



## Oldroe

The idea that everybody gets a union job and then just stops working is just B^%%$ll S^$$T.

It's true mangers need to put a good case together to fire somebody. Mangers don't get to give the gravy to there little pets.

If you are not productive and work for a good manger the union might protect you for a bit but not long.


----------



## Westerly

Spicez: I work in a union for government, have a Univ degree and additional education equivalent of a CGA. I make $65,000 / yr. My manager makes $100,000 / yr after 30+ years, and also well educated. That's basically the range that I will see. We are in a professional field protecting your (our) assets. My manager, myself, and most of the other people in our division show up for work on time, work hard, and take more than our share of crap from the public (with a professional smile of course.) The private sector equivalent range is $85,000-$150,000 plus potential bonuses/rewards. I'm not complaining, I make the decision to stay based on my personal considerations including the over-all remuneration package. 

However, I also pay EI, CPP, Tax and 50% of my pension. My take-home is roughly $3,400 / month. On average (I hope to do better) I'll collect 33 pension cheques before croaking; less than 3 years at 50% of my pay after 25 years of service, 30% of that will be taken back as taxes. My spouse (on average) will collect half of that again, also taxed, for perhaps another 10 years (that's my half that I will have personally paid into for 25 years.) The CPP that I will have paid into for 40 years will all-but disappear as my spouse has also paid into CPP. Think I'm over-paid? Is that too much? Don't like that I get a pension? Do you think I wouldn't rather put the pension contribution $$$ (including the employer's portion, which is part of my remuneration) into a private RRSP so that I know I or my estate will actually see the benefit of it? 

Spicez, you do not pay my wages and I sure as hell do not live off your productivity. You do not work harder than me. You work in a country whose economy is based on resource extraction; you and I have the privilege of benefiting from these resources which belong to all of us. Without getting too far off-track, my children's children will be paying your wages for years. I won't comment any further on this topic, I see the government has done a good brainwashing job, at least with some, with its war on its employees.


----------



## fraser

Westerly..you hit this on the head.

IMHO you total comp package is fair. It is a lower than you would get in the private sector however this is offset by some increased job security.

It ia absolute rubbish that every person working in the public sector is overpaid, just as it is rubbish that they all sit around and watch the clock. There is a lot of pension envy out there...mostly by people who choose not to see all the facts or contribute the same dollars.


----------



## RBull

Westerly, seems like a pretty fair account of your situation on the wages part and provides some valuable insight. However, you completely lost me on the pension part with you getting 33 cheques, croaking, wife getting 50% again, 30% tax rate, CPP disappear?????


----------



## Oldroe

Union likes to tell you the avg. amount of time you collect a pension. Thats 33 months and you drop dead.

Wife gets 50 % would be the survivor benefits 2k/month pension wife gets 1k some keep medical some don't.

My wife only gets 900/mth survivor benefits and keeps medical.


----------



## RBull

^doesn't make much sense to me. Lifespans are much longer than that for Canadians, unless they're suggesting union people die 15 years+ earlier than the general population.

Tax rate also doesn't seem realistic on those amounts. My wife is on DB pension now so I am familiar with survivor benefits etc.


----------



## Westerly

Sorry, some of these were a stretch off topic but relevant to "are public servants overpaid":
Yes, that's what we're told, 33 pension payments average, I accept it as stat based. The longer (and older) someone works the lower that #. Think about the affect raising OAS to 67 will have on that # where some people are forced to work longer. Fed wins both ways, on both ends. 
CPP: My spouse will have near max CPP and won't collect any (or much) of mine should I pre-decease her. Fed wins on that one.
Tax rate: You're right, call it 15% if you like.


----------



## RBull

^sounds WAY OFF on the 33 pension payments. Would love to see info on that, especially since anecdotally most people working for the government retire earlier than those working in private business. If that is the case employee and government employer contributions would need be next to nothing over the years. Or are they saying this is the employee payout and no mention of spousal benefit upon death. Either way makes little sense to me.

I deal with approx 600 clients a year in my PT career and many are retired. Again anecdotally almost all of those retired at age 55-60 are former government of some type(that can afford our service), so most likely live more years in retirement than the average person. Meaning they would collect a lot of pension payments just using typical expected life spans of male and female in Canada. 

My wife worked for the province for 30 years. I looked at her pension annual report and could not get enough detail to ascertain years/months of pension payouts. However the average age of someone currently retired was 69 and in a profession where most retire by 55 (my wife went 3 years earlier than that, and age 57 in typical education/occupation pattern gives full pension), it is likely MUCH longer than 33 payouts. More likely closer to 330 payouts, which is part of the reason it has such a large unfunded liability.

Same for many including me on the CPP stuff. Same for us on the pension thing and other sources of income. However we'll be quite a bit lower than a 30% retirement tax rate even with substantial pension & savings, and in highly taxed NS.


----------



## Westerly

I removed parts of my quote as it was getting too far off-topic. Yes, I think 33 payments and then spousal benefit where applicable. IMO, spousal benefit is the $$ that the retiree has personally contributed.


----------



## andrewf

Westerly said:


> Sorry, some of these were a stretch off topic but relevant to "are public servants overpaid":
> Yes, that's what we're told, 33 pension payments average, I accept it as stat based. The longer (and older) someone works the lower that #. Think about the affect raising OAS to 67 will have on that # where some people are forced to work longer. Fed wins both ways, on both ends.
> CPP: My spouse will have near max CPP and won't collect any (or much) of mine should I pre-decease her. Fed wins on that one.
> Tax rate: You're right, call it 15% if you like.


I call shenanigans on that stat. Life expectancy at 65 is something like 20 more years. So unless unions shorten your lifespan by 17 years, the stat is bogus. But it would hardly be the first time a union would lie to their membership.


----------



## RBull

Westerly said:


> I removed parts of my quote as it was getting too far off-topic. Yes, I think 33 payments and then spousal benefit where applicable. IMO, spousal benefit is the $$ that the retiree has personally contributed.


Thanks for replying. Your posts gave another side to the public service union folk.


----------



## Westerly

Again getting off topic, but why is it an unfunded liability? People say that and it sounds like the employee still has an outstanding debt. It is the employer that has not put enough away. My annual remuneration package includes the government's contribution to my pension. There's a whole other topic on the Fed scooping pension surpluses in the past. 

How much of a nest egg (just a broad guess works for me) do you think your wife would have if she had directly received her full remuneration, including the employer's portion of the contribution, in her pay over 30 years and invested it in rrsps, RE etc?


----------



## HaroldCrump

Westerly said:


> Spicez: I work in a union for government, have a Univ degree and additional education equivalent of a CGA. I make $65,000 / yr. My manager makes $100,000 / yr after 30+ years, and also well educated.
> ...
> The private sector equivalent range is $85,000-$150,000 plus potential bonuses/rewards. I'm not complaining, I make the decision to stay based on my personal considerations including the over-all remuneration package.


Let's assume that your _total_ compensation is fair and competitive vis-à-vis the private sector.
So, why do you need a union?
What is the competitive advantage that the union is providing you?

And if it's the other way around i.e. your compensation is higher _because _you are part of a union, well that is the answer to what unions do to the labor market and public expenditure.



> I see the government has done a good brainwashing job, at least with some, with its war on its employees.


All governments in recent history, yes even including the current federal govt., have been _extremely_ accommodative to public sector unions.
Public sector workers have been getting above average raises for the last 5 years while the rest of the economy is mired in recession.
Govt. hiring has been increasing while private sector employment has been falling.
Govt. is increasing spending while private corporations are reducing it.

It is ludicrous that despite all the concessions, all the accommodations that various levels of govt. have been making for the unionized public sector, members of these unions such as yourself have the temerity to say there is a war against you.
If this is war, I don't know what you would expect during peace.

The only war going on here is being waged by the public sector unions against the tax payers.


----------



## Westerly

Being unionized isn't about competitive advantage (IMO) but is about levelling the playing field with employers. While I agree that some unions are off-track with their control / demands, I would hate to see where we would be without unions in general. I'm not sure what other unions are getting but my contracted economic raises are 1-1.5%. My real wage increases are through promotions, as are yours, I trust. 

My spouse, who also works in the public sector but is union-excluded, has received "0"% in 3 years while her unionized counterparts have received at least inflation. So I guess at least the unions are helping to maintain livable wages.

As for the rest of your comments, you support my position.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Westerly said:


> As for the rest of your comments, you support my position.


Um, no I do not.
Whatever gave you that horrific idea that I support your position.

It is offensive to me that as a public sector unionist you allege that tax payers are waging a war against you.


----------



## Westerly

I wasn't trying to be personal, sorry.


----------



## RBull

Westerly said:


> Again getting off topic, but why is it an unfunded liability? People say that and it sounds like the employee still has an outstanding debt. It is the employer that has not put enough away. My annual remuneration package includes the government's contribution to my pension. There's a whole other topic on the Fed scooping pension surpluses in the past.
> 
> How much of a nest egg (just a broad guess works for me) do you think your wife would have if she had directly received her full remuneration, including the employer's portion of the contribution, in her pay over 30 years and invested it in rrsps, RE etc?


It is an unfunded liability because the assets are lower than the liabilities. There are many reasons for this but is not only due to the "employer not putting enough away", as the employee is also responsible for contributions. Reasons include : The number of retirees is exceeding the numbers of currently working contributors, the investment returns are lower than expected and people are living longer and therefore collecting benefits longer. Many years longer than the 33 months your union has told you. My sense is the government appointed trustees have failed to act quickly enough in their duties to both pensioners and the public. If you're asking this to determine whether we think we would be better off taking the money ourselves or accepting her pension the quick answer is - keep the pension by a long shot. Ask me in 10 years and maybe the answer might be different depending on the state of her pension. But then again things can change rapidly with savings for retirement too. 

How this may be resolved is yet to be determined. First steps included rolling back indexing/ partial indexing unless plan is 90%+ funded. Maybe the taxpayer will be forced to cough up, or maybe benefits will be reduced, or maybe current contributions will rise dramatically or likely some combination of all. 

Pretty hard to answer that kind of hypothetical question. If doing things on her own I am certain it would be far less than what she gets now, and with less guarantee than she currently has. I would not have the ability to match the returns of their fund manager, and the time/effort involved in trying is incalculable. I know that from my side of the equation, without a DB pension. 

Anyhow, this is all a long ways off topic. Although she would agree her union really didn't do anything valuable other than skim off a good amount of money from her and other members.


----------



## SpIcEz

Westerly said:


> Spicez: I work in a union for government, have a Univ degree and additional education equivalent of a CGA. I make $65,000 / yr. My manager makes $100,000 / yr after 30+ years, and also well educated. That's basically the range that I will see. We are in a professional field protecting your (our) assets. My manager, myself, and most of the other people in our division show up for work on time, work hard, and take more than our share of crap from the public (with a professional smile of course.) The private sector equivalent range is $85,000-$150,000 plus potential bonuses/rewards. I'm not complaining, I make the decision to stay based on my personal considerations including the over-all remuneration package.
> 
> However, I also pay EI, CPP, Tax and 50% of my pension. My take-home is roughly $3,400 / month. On average (I hope to do better) I'll collect 33 pension cheques before croaking; less than 3 years at 50% of my pay after 25 years of service, 30% of that will be taken back as taxes. My spouse (on average) will collect half of that again, also taxed, for perhaps another 10 years (that's my half that I will have personally paid into for 25 years.) The CPP that I will have paid into for 40 years will all-but disappear as my spouse has also paid into CPP. Think I'm over-paid? Is that too much? Don't like that I get a pension? Do you think I wouldn't rather put the pension contribution $$$ (including the employer's portion, which is part of my remuneration) into a private RRSP so that I know I or my estate will actually see the benefit of it?
> 
> Spicez, you do not pay my wages and I sure as hell do not live off your productivity. You do not work harder than me. You work in a country whose economy is based on resource extraction; you and I have the privilege of benefiting from these resources which belong to all of us. Without getting too far off-track, my children's children will be paying your wages for years. I won't comment any further on this topic, I see the government has done a good brainwashing job, at least with some, with its war on its employees.


1. I dont know what you do, but I'll compare it to an example of someone I know well. He is a computer analyst works for Hydro-Quebec. Doesnt want to be unionised, but he is, because he has no choice. Because of seniority he is called a "Level 4 systems architect", which gives him a certain pay grade. I worked with him on a few projects (that I did for Hydro Q) and despite the union, he was hard working and smart. He had colegue a few desks away however with the same pay grade, who where lazy. They might have been janitors for all it mattered, because they never produced ANYTHING of value in their field at all. Basicaly show up, surf the web and leave.

Thing is, IT does not need a union. IT almost everywhere ISNT union. UNLESS... you are an the public sector. And then, some become lazy, and most keep on working normally. But most people in IT should never have been added to a union. There is no need for it.

2. Im not math wiz, but I bet if you compare your salary to the private sector average and remove taxes, the 50% your employer is paying into the pension is worth a lot more. 
Im not going to go into if you are paid enough or not, I dont know you or what you do. My problem is the fact that while you are paid ok for your work, the guy next to you will be paid the same for 20% less productivity, just because of seniority. THATS what irritates me.

3. Your cpp thing, is off topic. Its the same with everyone. If I do a good enough job of putting money aside, my cpp will be useless too.

4. You are paid fairly, if you work for it. My problem is with the guy next to you and the other, that are NOT working hard for the same paid, they are overpaid YES. And yes to your other question, it IS too much. I don't mind that you have a pension, but quit complaining that its only a 50% and you have you put in the other 50%. Thats more than most workers in Canada get. Most of us have to put in 100%.

5. Like you mentioned, your decision to stay in that job is based on personal considerations and over all remuneration package. If you've made that decision, great. What I dont like is, when the overall package is same and or better than private, but the union fights to get this and that more and in the end, the overall package ends up above and beyond because of all the extra concessions.

6. I DO PAY YOUR WAGES. And you sure as hell DO work off my productivity and other tax payers. If you work for the government, you most likely are being paid to provide a service to tax payers.
Even people working at the liquor store, board, or Quebec SAQ work to provide a service and are paid by HEAVY taxes stolen from us because we want to drink an 11% alcohol bottle of wine (its sooooo evil). If you work for Hydro one or Hydro Quebec, the wages are paid off of fees charged for electricity. But the whole corporation belongs to tax payers. So any fat, or inefficiency is less money (profit) being transferred to the government to help cover other expenses and debts. I am sure maybe there are a few exceptions, but generally speaking you provide a public service, thus are paid by the public. And public money comes from private productivity.

Money doesn't grow on trees (as they say).

7. I think even though you probably have a good education and a job that shouldn't require a union (because its easy to evaluate productivity and should be paid based off of that), the union has done a good brainwashing job, at least with some, with its war on the private citizens pockets.  (see what I did there... )


----------



## Oldroe

What you don't get is un productive employees are a management problem. Good mangers will demand output and bad employees will move on when the pressure gets to much.


----------



## valueindexer

The whole reason a union exists is to stop managers from doing what they want. It's no mystery why managers don't get rid of bad employees when someone is forcing them to put job security and seniority above skill motivation and contribution. If they don't they lose all their employees. With some unions the only pressure employees face is waiting for the time to pass until they could get their promotion. 

That pressure will drive away some people. For example I have never come close to a unionized industry because of things like that. I wonder if I'm a bad employee. Good thing I always turn down job offers so I won't have to find out.


----------



## sags

Companies with a unionized workforce, have no more trouble getting rid of a problem employee than non union employers.

The laws are basically the same either way.

To terminate someone.........there has to be "just cause".

Any union/company agreements I have seen start with a clause that acknowledge the company "management rights".

Most unionized workplaces have contracts with clauses, that deal in a systematic fashion with problem employees.

The concept is called "progressive discipline"

1) The employer issues a verbal warning..........in the presence of the union rep. It is documented.

2) The employer issues a written warning........in the presence of the union rep. It is documented.

3) The employer issues a 2nd written warning..in the presence of the union rep. The employee is suspended without pay for 1 week. It is documented

4) The employer issues a 3rd and final written warning......in the presence of the union rep. The employee is suspended for 30 days without pay. It is documented.

5) The employer terminates the employee and advises the union rep. The employee is terminated for just cause.

It is simple really. Any manager who can't handle the procedure efficiently..........is in need of training.

All the documentation is to the benefit of the company, in case they have to defend a future lawsuit for "unjust dismissal".

During these steps, the union rep would no doubt be advising the employee they needed to change their work habits, or they would be facing termination and the union would not expend the expenses to represent them in any legal claims, as proper procedure was followed and there would be no legal grounds to proceed.

Most people straighten up...........after the union tells them the facts of life.

It should be pointed out as well........the company made the judgement call to hire the employee......not the union.

A common phrase among union reps is........"I spend 99% of my time dealing with 1% of the members"


----------



## sags

A union/management contract is negotiated and agreed to by both parties.

It is an agreed upon set of rules, that handle different situations.......and extends far beyond wages and benefits.

Such things as seniority rights for internal job postings, layoff procedures, overtime scheduling, vacation rotations, hours and location of work, health and safety practices, grievance procedures, jury pay, .......and many more topics are included in contracts.

These rules benefit both the union members and the employer, as it sets out a clear outline of everyone's responsibility.

Everyone involved knows what should happen in the different situations that continually emerge in a large workforce.


----------



## RBull

^too many steps and people involved. 

I'm proud of being part of management for a company that had several different unions on several occasions try to mobilize without success. That felt good, and from what I could see and hear it felt good for most of the staff.


----------



## Oldroe

If there was several attempts your company likely will get a union and also deserve a union.


----------



## RBull

Oldroe said:


> If there was several attempts your company likely will get a union and also deserve a union.


I have not worked there for 10 years. They did not get a union. Therefore the company got what it deserved - no union and the union got what it deserved -a kick in the butt.


----------



## sags

View attachment 399


Union...........we're baaaack.


----------



## SpIcEz

sags said:


> Companies with a unionized workforce, have no more trouble getting rid of a problem employee than non union employers.
> 
> The laws are basically the same either way.
> 
> To terminate someone.........there has to be "just cause".
> 
> Any union/company agreements I have seen start with a clause that acknowledge the company "management rights".
> 
> Most unionized workplaces have contracts with clauses, that deal in a systematic fashion with problem employees.
> 
> The concept is called "progressive discipline"
> 
> 1) The employer issues a verbal warning..........in the presence of the union rep. It is documented.
> 
> 2) The employer issues a written warning........in the presence of the union rep. It is documented.
> 
> 3) The employer issues a 2nd written warning..in the presence of the union rep. The employee is suspended without pay for 1 week. It is documented
> 
> 4) The employer issues a 3rd and final written warning......in the presence of the union rep. The employee is suspended for 30 days without pay. It is documented.
> 
> 5) The employer terminates the employee and advises the union rep. The employee is terminated for just cause.
> 
> It is simple really. Any manager who can't handle the procedure efficiently..........is in need of training.
> 
> All the documentation is to the benefit of the company, in case they have to defend a future lawsuit for "unjust dismissal".
> 
> During these steps, the union rep would no doubt be advising the employee they needed to change their work habits, or they would be facing termination and the union would not expend the expenses to represent them in any legal claims, as proper procedure was followed and there would be no legal grounds to proceed.
> 
> Most people straighten up...........after the union tells them the facts of life.
> 
> It should be pointed out as well........the company made the judgement call to hire the employee......not the union.
> 
> A common phrase among union reps is........"I spend 99% of my time dealing with 1% of the members"


This is a whole lot of wasted time. Protects the employee only, not the employer. You have the union verbiage down pat, because your good at trying to twist things into an employer "advantage" when its not.

And being able to fire people just as easily as in a non-union company is bullshit.

While I was putting up a video camera system on a Hydro dam for Hydro Quebec, while reviewing video of the previous night to see night time shots, we got a clip of an employee stealing from the company. Black and white, easily identifiable, undeniably theft, HAND in cookie jar situation.

Couldnt fire him.

Tried to issue verbal, written, whatever warning. The Union wouldnt hear of it. WHY? Those cameras are there to prevent external threats, they are not to film employees on the job and any accidental video that is caught of employees working is not admissible by the union...

Now tell me, who is protecting who and from what?


----------



## SpIcEz

sags said:


> A union/management contract is negotiated and agreed to by both parties.
> 
> It is an agreed upon set of rules, that handle different situations.......and extends far beyond wages and benefits.
> 
> Such things as seniority rights for internal job postings, layoff procedures, overtime scheduling, vacation rotations, hours and location of work, health and safety practices, grievance procedures, jury pay, .......and many more topics are included in contracts.
> 
> These rules benefit both the union members and the employer, as it sets out a clear outline of everyone's responsibility.
> 
> Everyone involved knows what should happen in the different situations that continually emerge in a large workforce.


Union contracts are negotiated at gun point to the employers head.
In most cases, if the management does not agree to the terms, the only option is to close shop.
Once the union has brainwashed all the employees into voting to unionise, the employer is basically screwed.

Employers can and do set out clear outlines without Unions.


----------



## SpIcEz

Oldroe said:


> If there was several attempts your company likely will get a union and also deserve a union.


The attemps are often external.
Unions dont like when there are holdouts in their field of expertise.
So they hound those shops until they get enough cards for a vote.
They DONT CARE if the employees actually want to unionise or not, they couldnt care less.
Its like a cancer that grows and grows unless kept in check... it'll eventually swallow the area (shop) whole.


----------



## newtothegame

Unions good or bad? This question can be easily answered in one post.

If you are a business owner, or a shareholder, unions certainly can be an unwanted entity.

If you are an employee, you are typically better off working in a unionized environment.

Big business has their lobbyists. The working class has their unions.

I generally try not to take a hard line stance on these matters, because I can see the issues from both sides. Unions and the working class aren't without fault, but big business certainly hasn't been without fault either... They weren't 100 years ago, and they still aren't today.


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> View attachment 399
> 
> 
> union...........we're baaaack.


lol


----------



## Oldroe

Several attempts at a union tells everybody that your company has done just enough to stop the union. Then they slid back and another attempt tells me your company/management are abusers and will be unionized at some point.


----------



## Nemo2

Oldroe said:


> Several attempts at a union tells everybody that your company has done just enough to stop the union. Then they slid back and another attempt tells me your company/management are abusers and will be unionized at some point.


Or perhaps only one or two employees are fostering the repeated attempts at unionization?


----------



## Westerly

SpIcEz said:


> 6. I DO PAY YOUR WAGES. And you sure as hell DO work off my productivity and other tax payers. If you work for the government, you most likely are being paid to provide a service to tax payers.
> Even people working at the liquor store, board, or Quebec SAQ work to provide a service and are paid by HEAVY taxes stolen from us because we want to drink an 11% alcohol bottle of wine (its sooooo evil). If you work for Hydro one or Hydro Quebec, the wages are paid off of fees charged for electricity. But the whole corporation belongs to tax payers. So any fat, or inefficiency is less money (profit) being transferred to the government to help cover other expenses and debts. I am sure maybe there are a few exceptions, but generally speaking you provide a public service, thus are paid by the public. And public money comes from private productivity.


I find it interesting, when people talk about paying taxes (or having them stolen) they position themselves across the table from Gov; when (unionized) public servants talk of their employer, those same people position themselves across the table as taxpayers, with rights of an employer. Prior to working for Gov I had the same thought, that I paid their wages. My perspective has changed, of course. We all work for Canada. This discussion aside, I have found it particularly humorous over the years when I've heard people say, "I pay your wages" and they don't work enough to pay taxes themselves. If I'd read the first 28 pages of this thread I wouldn't have wandered in. Take care.


----------



## Oldroe

One or two people will not get any union involved. 

Unions are a business and they won't spend the money if there is no hope. That's why I know this company deserves a union.


----------



## Nemo2

Oldroe said:


> One or two people will not get any union involved.


Roughly what percentage of employees must be seeking unionization before a union will get involved?



Oldroe said:


> Unions are a business and they won't spend the money if there is no hope.


But..but.....I thought they were altruists seeking betterment for the 'common man'? :rolleyes2:


----------



## Oldroe

Guess there are people that believe that.


----------



## hystat

dogcom said:


> Hockey players are part of the elite and yes they are way overpaid. Still however we need to address the way overpaid as well as overpaid public union people. As you know we are losing the middle class especially in the US and in place we have the ultra rich and the working poor.


Hockey players aren't overpaid. They pack the seats and people pay the high prices. If the money doesn't go to the players, Who in your opinion should get the money? The team owners?

see any parallels to employees/unions and employers?

Quite a few of my investments are in companies with unionized workforces. Many of them are doing quite well.


----------



## RBull

Oldroe said:


> Several attempts at a union tells everybody that your company has done just enough to stop the union. Then they slid back and another attempt tells me your company/management are abusers and will be unionized at some point.





> One or two people will not get any union involved.
> 
> Unions are a business and they won't spend the money if there is no hope. That's why I know this company deserves a union.




There was/is no union, there was no union needed and the company proved this, despite unions wasting time and money to try and set up as was done in the same type of business in other markets. That was their only motivation. 

It is impossible for someone to "know" what you claim without understanding a lot more of what happened. 

"Hope" does not equal "deserves a union". 

My father used an expression all the time that I think is quite appropriate here. "There are none so blind as those who will not see." It's obvious you will only see what you want to see.


----------



## Oldroe

Just reading trax in the snow plain as day. Your company deserves a union.


----------



## SpIcEz

Oldroe,

Do you know the company RBull works for? If so... then maybe you have insight, if you do not, then you are just being bull headed and stubborn.

An external union organisation, attempting to convince people who DON'T WANT a union to start one (on multiple occasions) does not mean the company deserves a union.

Contrary to what you think, unions do go into companies and try and get employees all riled up and convinced they need their help.


----------



## Oldroe

No I don't know the company and I'm sure Bull won't say. That keeps the other side of the story quiet.


----------



## mauricecowell

It's funny non union shops charge the same amount for jobs as union shops. Non Union shops under pay workers so who pockets the money.


----------



## birdman

Not sure if a unionized employee can only be dismissed only with "just cause". In a non unionized environment an employee can be dismissed "without cause" providing adequate notice (or payment in lieu of this notice) is made. Notice or payment in lieu of notice is dependent on many factors including length of service, age, position (management, clerical, executive, etc), age, future employment prospects, etc. I believe the minimums are laid out in provincial legislation. Nobody in non unionized company is entitled to a job for life. Not sure if the foregoing applies to union employees and it is most likely included in the contract. Would be interested to know the answer to the latter-my memory must be failing!


----------



## SpIcEz

mauricecowell said:


> It's funny non union shops charge the same amount for jobs as union shops. Non Union shops under pay workers so who pockets the money.


I think you mean Union shops charge the same as non union because... COMPETITION.

They can't charge more regardless, else they wont sell.

You are basically saying, there are profits? WTF?

People are quick to forget that without profits there is NO REASON for enterprise... NONE.

Also, union workers are very quick to forget that their pension funds fuel on corporate profits.


----------



## sags

We had people who always complained about the union, and wanted nothing to do with it..............except they showed up once every 4 years to see what the union negotiated on their behalf.

While complaining about paying dues.....they accepted the wages and benefits and went running to the union when the company refused to give them time off for their kid's graduation or some similar complaint.

_"I've been rich and I've been poor......rich is better"..............Sophie Tucker.
_
I've been union and I've been non-union....union is better..............Sags.


----------



## LBCfan

I was a union member once. Our union included everyone from the lowest to highest paid "non management" workers. Contract time, there were 4 of us in the highest paid bracket vs. 150 in the lowest and many more in between. Company offered X% across the board. Union demanded that the 4 of us have our pay lowered to increase the rest (you there JT?). Then they demanded I go on strike for a lower salary. 

Did I cross the picket line? Your guess is probably correct.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> I've been union and I've been non-union....union is better..............Sags.


Indeed...union protectionism is great for the small % of people within the union...bad for society, esp. taxpayers.
Public sector unions bankrupting Ontario..after the events of last couple of years, don't think any further evidence is needed.
Yet the apologists for unionism will rally on...


----------



## Virdent

Having worked in the teamsters union and outside it as a non union worker for even longer I can see both sides of the picture but in the end most these union workers are hard working men and women just wanting a better work environment to provide for their families. 

It's amazing how much hate union people can get as if they sit on a gold horse getting things handed to them. Can we be happy for the union people and them earning a fair pay cheque and instead of complaining lets look to push for fair wages and work environments for all Canadians, union or not.

Just an american list I found but still holds mostly true for Canadians::

Did you know that labor unions made the following 36 things possible?

Weekends without work
All breaks at work, including your lunch breaks
Paid vacation
Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
Sick leave
Social Security
Minimum wage
Civil Rights Act/Title VII - prohibits employer discrimination
8-hour work day
Overtime pay
Child labor laws
Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
40-hour work week
Workers' compensation (workers' comp)
Unemployment insurance
Pensions
Workplace safety standards and regulations
Employer health care insurance
Collective bargaining rights for employees
Wrongful termination laws
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)
Whistleblower protection laws
Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) - prohibits employers from using a lie detector test on an employee
Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
Compensation increases and evaluations (i.e. raises)
Sexual harassment laws
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Holiday pay
Employer dental, life, and vision insurance
Privacy rights
Pregnancy and parental leave
Military leave
The right to strike
Public education for children
Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 - requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work
Laws ending sweatshops in the United States


----------



## birdman

Virdent, I agree with you but its too bad some, and expect its a very few, abuse the process with a poor work ethic, excessive and not required sick days, laziness, rudeness, unreal wage and benefit demands, and actually do things to screw the company or government who employs them. The company or government knows the the process of firing and/or disciplining these few is just not worth the effort. Too bad the brothers or the union of those few would would not take a stand against them as opposed to calling them their brothers and supporting them. It may be a good first step.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

In England, Canada and the US unions regarded their employers as enemies and did everything in their power to destroy them. They succeeded.

Somehow this never happened in Germany. I don't know any details but Germany still has an auto industry, electronics industry and lots of other industries that we handed over to the Japanese and Chinese. German factories are clean, modern, efficient and the workers are well paid and well treated. It would be interesting to know how they managed this and how unions can cooperate with employers to get better pay and working conditions for workers, without robbing the company or their customers.


----------



## none

^ that's an odd comment considering: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/b...ems-at-volkswagen-start-in-the-boardroom.html


----------



## sags

In European countries, the employees often have representation on the company board of directors, either through a union or other form of employee group.

North American corporations would shudder at such a suggestion and unions aren't in favor either because it dilutes the focus of their representation of their members.

Telus recently announced...........a 1500 employee layoff and a 5% dividend increase to shareholders.

It isn't hard to figure out who the company values more, and why unions and companies have adversarial roles. 

Since it came to Canada, Toyota has fought against unionization of it's workers by promising "jobs for life" and wages and benefits that mimic the Big Three. 

Over time, union ratification was rejected several times by employees.........and how does the company repay their loyalty ?

They are moving to Mexico........so much for the promises and "jobs for life".

Without union negotiated contracts regarding severance notices and pay..........Toyota is only required to offer the amounts legislated by law.

The employees lose by not being unionized, even in a plant closure.


----------



## SpIcEz

none said:


> ^ that's an odd comment considering: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/b...ems-at-volkswagen-start-in-the-boardroom.html


I don't see what is odd about it, your article basically confirms what Rusty just said.


----------



## SpIcEz

sags

I think you are misinformed on the subject or not telling the whole story if you are.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/toyota-gets-100m-in-aid-for-ontario-plants-1.3175354

Toyota is moving the Corolla production to Mexico in 2019 and have promised to replace it with another vehicle line which will be announced sometime in the future.
They are also investing 421 million dollars in their Canadian plants, in my opinion, so far, they are showing with action that they will not abandon the Canadian market and their employees.

How about we give them the benefit of the doubt and wait and see. Seems to me, they arent leaving at all.

Also, Toyota employees refuse to unionize because they know they are well treated. Why the hell would you want to pay union dues when you know you are being treated fairly?

Now, unless I missed something, or you know something I don't, I think your statements above are a wee bit on the union propaganda side.


----------



## spirit

I am a teacher and we have an association that is like a union.....just giving some disclosure. My husband was an electrician...now retired and he always worked for a union. In the 80's work was very hard to come by here in Alberta. Basically when you were finished a job, you put your name on the books and waited until your number was high enough to put your name in for any jobs that came up. They had a member who would leave the province, work non union and then when his name rose up high, he could come back to Alberta and claim a job. The union tried to discipline him but they were not allowed to.....basically they were not allowed to discipline their members due to government regulations. Because jobs were so hard to come by, it caused a lot of grief for many people. I would think that if they could they would have done something about it. That is all I am aware of. Perhaps others can shed some light.


----------



## SpIcEz

spirit said:


> I am a teacher and we have an association that is like a union.....just giving some disclosure. My husband was an electrician...now retired and he always worked for a union. In the 80's work was very hard to come by here in Alberta. Basically when you were finished a job, you put your name on the books and waited until your number was high enough to put your name in for any jobs that came up. They had a member who would leave the province, work non union and then when his name rose up high, he could come back to Alberta and claim a job. The union tried to discipline him but they were not allowed to.....basically they were not allowed to discipline their members due to government regulations. Because jobs were so hard to come by, it caused a lot of grief for many people. I would think that if they could they would have done something about it. That is all I am aware of. Perhaps others can shed some light.


I'm glad they didint get to discipline him.

He basically was on a waiting list to work in his home province. But probably had a family to feed, so he went out of province to feed his family until it was his turn to find a job close to home.

Whats wrong with that? I know, the Union wasnt receiving dues when he was out of province, that must have been irritating for them.


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> Since it came to Canada, Toyota has fought against unionization of it's workers by promising "jobs for life" and wages and benefits that mimic the Big Three.
> 
> Over time, union ratification was rejected several times by employees.........and how does the company repay their loyalty ?
> 
> They are moving to Mexico........so much for the promises and "jobs for life".
> 
> Without union negotiated contracts regarding severance notices and pay..........Toyota is only required to offer the amounts legislated by law.
> 
> The employees lose by not being unionized, even in a plant closure.


How can any company or organization truly promise jobs for life? Whose life?

Take your pick of which is more foolish- a company claiming jobs for life (if this is true) or an employee believing or expecting this- whether unionized or not.


----------



## RBull

SpIcEz said:


> sags
> 
> I think you are misinformed on the subject or not telling the whole story if you are.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/toyota-gets-100m-in-aid-for-ontario-plants-1.3175354
> 
> Toyota is moving the Corolla production to Mexico in 2019 and have promised to replace it with another vehicle line which will be announced sometime in the future.
> They are also investing 421 million dollars in their Canadian plants, in my opinion, so far, they are showing with action that they will not abandon the Canadian market and their employees.
> 
> How about we give them the benefit of the doubt and wait and see. Seems to me, they arent leaving at all.
> 
> Also, Toyota employees refuse to unionize because they know they are well treated. Why the hell would you want to pay union dues when you know you are being treated fairly?
> 
> Now, unless I missed something, or you know something I don't, I think your statements above are a wee bit on the union propaganda side.


Good catch. I see the author updated his post.


----------



## sags

The Ontario and Federal governments are contributing $100 million of the $421 million Toyota has said they will invest, and say they will introduce another undetermined model for the Cambridge plants.

The Corolla is a highly successful model and the plants run at full production. It remains to be seen which model the plants will receive and the volume of production it will require.

Some of the investment is going to be spent at the Woodstock plant, which has not been slated for replacement since it is their newest plant in Canada.

The different levels of government spent hundreds of millions in infrastructure for the Woodstock plant.

New rail lines, a new high power hydro corridor, a new highway 401 exchange, water and sewer upgrades, and road widening were all paid by the taxpayers to accommodate the plant.

Unifor had a vote scheduled last year, but were forced to cancel it after the company gave them a new list of additional employees which meant the threshold for voting fell below the required amount.

Toyota workers have edged closer and closer to unionization, but the company is determined and effective at keeping the union out.

In Japan, Toyota workers are unionized............represented by the Toyota Motor Workers' Union


----------



## SpIcEz

So... still to early to call out Toyota, as they haven't made a move to close the plant yet and said they wouldn't, so far.

About the unionization... the only reason they get closer and closer is because the union THUGS keep going at it non stop convincing a few weak minded workers to try and push it through internally.
Its exactly the same as the separatists here in Quebec asking for a referendum every 4 years. If we said no, drop the damn subject for 10-20 years.

If I was an employee at the Toyota plant, Id want to beat the crap out of the few idiots pushing for the union.


----------



## rl1983

SpIcEz said:


> So... still to early to call out Toyota, as they haven't made a move to close the plant yet and said they wouldn't, so far.
> 
> About the unionization... the only reason they get closer and closer is because the union THUGS keep going at it non stop convincing a few weak minded workers to try and push it through internally.
> Its exactly the same as the separatists here in Quebec asking for a referendum every 4 years. If we said no, drop the damn subject for 10-20 years.
> 
> If I was an employee at the Toyota plant, Id want to beat the crap out of the few idiots pushing for the union.


It depends, are the workers being fairly treated? Most places of work don't " go union " unless their treatment issues.


----------



## SpIcEz

rl1983 said:


> It depends, are the workers being fairly treated? Most places of work don't " go union " unless their treatment issues.


Indeed, and they haven't! 

However, in that area of Ontario and in the auto industry, the union won't stop harassing the employees of non union shops until they get their way.


----------



## fraser

I strongly suspect that there are proportionally as many 'good' unions as there are 'good' corporate citizens. The reverse is no doubt true. We are stuck with them both.

I am a firm believer that many companies get the union that they deserve.

I have had a career in management. It always surprised me that one particular group of our employees did not unionize because they were treated so poorly. There was a rumour but it came to naught. Would have made my job more difficult but deep down I would have wholeheartedly supported it.


----------



## sags

With the recent election victories the issue of "right to work" laws isn't going anywhere..............so that is a good side benefit of the election results.


----------



## SpIcEz

sags said:


> With the recent election victories the issue of "right to work" laws isn't going anywhere..............so that is a good side benefit of the election results.


Why is that a good thing?


----------



## sags

Right to work laws lower wages (fewer unions equal lower wages), which lowers the tax base and government revenues and transfers working people from revenue contributors to benefit recipients (example Walmart), and we have consumer spending driven economies which rely on rising wages.

It is a race to the bottom, which can only end up in economic collapse.

Wages have been stagnant for decades and personal debt is at all time high records. That is a result not a coincidence.


----------



## fraser

You only have to look at Alberta's TFW situation to understand why unions can be a good thing. Imagine, so called respectable Canadian franchisees forcing workers who have no choice but to work long hours in the hospitality business(or be sent home) while at the same time underpaying them substantially. Because these people were vulnerable and the employers could get away with it. 

One wonders how an employer could sink to such a low level as cheating minimum wage folk out of a portion of their wages. Or placing them in substandard, overcrowded housing arrangements while at the same time docking their salaries an unreasonable amount for this accommodation.

Unions came along to protect people who could not protect themselves.


----------



## SpIcEz

I can find two dozen reasons why unions can be a good thing, the problem is, I can find two dozen why they are a bad thing too.

There is no doubt they where necessary in the past and might still be in some situations. However I think in their current form and with current laws they are more of a problem for society as a whole.
Sometimes I wish we just didint have any unions, but thats just anger, we need them in some form or another. In fact what we do need is maybe to slightly increase our universal basic worker laws and weaken the unions. Compensate by both ends.

Here in Quebec those unions are ravaging our already weak economy and rilling up our weak minded impressionable students into rioting like its 1999 for no good reason.

The public sectors union is asking for a 13.5% increase over 3 years for 500 000 government employees. Its over 10 billion dollars they are asking for. Thats bloody INSANE.

Unions in the public sector are evil. They rape the many to benefit the few. When all they are is a god damned SERVICE to the MANY.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Regarding the moving of auto manufacturing jobs to Mexico, the reasons are being misunderstood by many.
It has more to do with Canada's lack of global competitiveness, both in labor costs as well as foreign trade.

Even with the CAD$ at 75c., Canadian labor cost is higher than the US, let alone Mexico.
Ford Canada CEO said clearly that it is much higher than even the US.
A car manufactured in Mexico can be sold in dozens and dozens of high growth countries around the world.
Car manufactured in Canada can basically be sold in Canada and the US.

Governments, both provincial and federal, are not listening to what the industry and business is saying.
They are only paying lip service to reviving manufacturing.
They are trying to cover up poor & corrupt economic policy with bailouts, grants, and subsidies.

On one hand, they are reducing Canadian manufacturing competitiveness by misguided ideology like high hydro costs, and allowing unions to hold the entire sector hostage.
On the other hand, they are wasting taxpayer $$ with bailouts, subsidies, and grants to companies that don't need it (neither Toyota nor Linamar needed those grants/subsidies).
It is nothing but corporate welfare.

Essentially, Ontario and even the federal govt. is trying to build up manufacturing based on welfare - both corporate as well as union.


----------



## HaroldCrump

SpIcEz said:


> The public sectors union is asking for a 13.5% increase over 3 years for 500 000 government employees. Its over billion dollars they are asking for. Thats bloody INSANE.
> Unions in the public sector are evil. They rape the many to benefit the few. When all they are is a god damned SERVICE to the MANY.


Public sector unions are essentially an income re-distribution & fake job creation mechanism.
Union raises, benefits, and pensions are funded via higher taxes on the private sector, deficit spending, and higher govt debt.
It's way to tax the 80% and benefit the 20%.

It is not a surprise that most union groups, such as CLC, CUPE, etc. directly and indirectly (i.e. via union-funded "think tanks" such as the CCPA, Broadbent, etc.) lobby for higher taxes and union friendly fiscal policy.


----------



## andrewf

Come now, Harold. Surely you can understand that the problem is not overpaid union members, but underpaid private sector workers. Once everyone earns more than average, the economy will boom and take care of itself. All this worrying about competitiveness and investment is just getting in the way of making the labour market more sclerotic.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

SpIcEz said:


> Here in Quebec those unions are ravaging our already weak economy and rilling up our weak minded impressionable students into rioting like its 1999 for no good reason.
> 
> The public sectors union is asking for a 13.5% increase over 3 years for 500 000 government employees. Its over 10 billion dollars they are asking for. Thats bloody INSANE.
> 
> Unions in the public sector are evil. They rape the many to benefit the few. When all they are is a god damned SERVICE to the MANY.


I'm a little late to the thread but I just felt I needed to input my 2 cents. I too am from QC and am totally against Unions especially in the public sector. They seem to take the money and pretend to benefit you but do more harm than good. I find the non-unionised sector here is paid better than the unionised or at least have better benefits. When you remove the union fees, there is not much left in your pocket when compared to no union fees.

The way I see it, you can only rely on yourself - you shouldn't rely on a union to protect your job....that's just being lazy, which is whom benefits the most out of unions.

Its not fair that a union can enter a company and never leave. If it were fair, there would be an annual vote to keep them in which is not the case.


----------



## sags

I am not sure what kind of world conservatives envision, that would remotely correspond with their ideology.

With free trade we have to compete with countries where labor costs $3 an hour or less. How do we compete with that ? Just living in a northern climate increases our cost of survival beyond tropical countries.

Lots of talk of a "new" economy, but no examples of what that would be.

What can Canadians do that can't be replicated anywhere in the world at less cost ?


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Come now, Harold. Surely you can understand that the problem is not overpaid union members, but underpaid private sector workers. Once everyone earns more than average, the economy will boom and take care of itself. All this worrying about competitiveness and investment is just getting in the way of making the labour market more sclerotic.


Just like Germany doesn't understand why the rest of Europe can't run surplus budgets...
_Everyone_ should run a surplus budget...

Not only are public sector unions egregiously overpaid, the compensation itself is rooted in corruption, graft & politicking.
Such as:

_*98 per cent of Ontario managers got bonuses*_

and

*Ontario Liberals gave OPSEU members a secret wage hike*


----------



## SW20 MR2

IMO, unions are mostly a detriment to society, especially when it comes to skilled and semi-skilled work. For example, there is absolutely no need for unions for jobs like teachers, cops, govt workers, etc. Having unions does nothing but drive up taxes and the price of goods. I'd say the only area where unions are needed is where jobs are minimal wage and where companies use temp/contract workers to shortchange people on things like benefits. Where you delineate the two, I'm not sure. I just get infuriated every time I hear about strikes, especially for public sector workers.


----------



## birdman

sags said:


> I am not sure what kind of world conservatives envision, that would remotely correspond with their ideology.
> 
> With free trade we have to compete with countries where labor costs $3 an hour or less. How do we compete with that ? Just living in a northern climate increases our cost of survival beyond tropical countries.
> 
> Lots of talk of a "new" economy, but no examples of what that would be.
> 
> What can Canadians do that can't be replicated anywhere in the world at less cost ?


I agree sags and with the exception of the export of raw materials such as O&G, minerals, lumber etc and perhaps some foodstuffs to the USA we can't. How can we compete in a global economy when our standard of living is so high compared to most other countries of the world? We all want more and more. We want reduced wait times in hospitals, we want better education for our children, we want 2 cars, an RV, lots of vacations, 1500 to 4500 sq ft homes, 2 tv's, the latest phones and computers, fancy meals, sporting activities, and on and on it goes. Most of the rest of the world does not have these. Furthermore, lots of people don't want to work for these. Remember the days the unions wanted to work 35 hrs a week and get paid for 40! Give me a break. Yes, unions may have a place but the militant and demanding leadership in some could send this great country of our into ruin. We are already facing problems with our O&G exports (prices and problems getting them to market with pipelines), our forestry all faces issues with the USA (softwood lumber agreement), and manufacturing is in the tank. Not sure where it is all going.


----------

