Originally Posted by iggy_oi
When a business closes, the effect it has on both employer and employee has a can vary greatly depending on circumstances. If a business closes due to low profits or losing money, the true effect is on ownership depends on a number of factors, such as if the owner owns other more profitable businesses, did this buissness make more during its profitable year than it has lost in its poor years and how much, or did this business simply fail from the get go and now the owner is bankrupt? All those circumstances drastically change the amount of hardship the owner faces in the event of closure. The employees' impact is based on similar variables, if they are close to retirement and already have enough saved up, if is it a good job market and they can easily find work, if it is a bad job market and they have been struggling to make ends meet because their spouse fell ill and is unable to work and they are staring at bankruptcy if they lose their job. We are all people with similar goals and needs in life, and life's challenges don't discriminate by income. No matter what position or how much money you make, a business closure will effect everyone uniquely based on personal financial factors. No two owners or employees will be impacted equally, so the argument of owners risk more is inaccurate.
Have you ever been on a negotiating committee? Serious question.
I have been at the table in numerous rounds of bargaining and to suggest that unions are trying to run companies lacks logic. In every collective bargaining agreement management rights are clearly set, they dictate how the business is run, the union members are their employees, the contract dictates their working conditions and rights.
Employment standards set minimum standards employers need to follow, guess who got you those minimum standards? Unions. Do you think companies just up and decided that they should allow a new parent a guaranteed year off without losing their job or rate of pay? Or that they thought it would be a good idea for profits to pay people tims and a half for overtime? Heck before unions the term overtime didn't exist, they fought tooth and nail to get the 40 hour work week we all enjoy today as a right.
The problem with employment standards is the labour board does not have enough power to enforce them in a way that truly protects a worker, they cannot force a company to rehire you if they fired you for unjustly, they can make sure the company gets a letter telling them their wrong and make sure you get your 2-6 weeks severance but that's about it in the case of a termination. In the case of being paid overtime, yeah they can enforce this as well, all you have to do is bring them your pay stub and wait a couple months for them to resolve it, then your boss can wait until you show up to work late on day and fire you for making your complaint. Human rights has a little bit more teeth for fighting for your rights at work, but those cases are sometimes very difficult to prove and also take months to years to resolve. Also should point out, unions got you human rights.
The reason most Loblaws employees are part time is because they do not post full time positions unless forced to, it's a way of keeping labour costs down to increase profits, notice I said increase profits not create profits. They can afford more, they would just rather not reward their employees with a reasonable wage if they don't have to. Unions know this tactic and many now negotiate ratios of minimum number of full time to part time. It's not unreasonable for a full time worker in the city of Calgary to want to make $40-50k, just because they don't work a highly skilled job shouldn't mean they have to live in poverty while working full time for a company that is profiting billions annually.
Walmart has closed every single store that has unionized in the US, and they structure their business in a way which makes it very challenging for its workers to unionize, my post has already gotten long enough so if you'd like a more in depth explanation on this please send me a pm.
My point about slavery comes from a combination of many of the points I've made above, the labour movement started at a time when workers had no rights, they basically got whatever their boss offered and if they didn't do it that was it, so people fought to change this. The mentality amongst employers has never changed in the sense that they need to make money but want to spend as little as possible to make as much as possible. People have fallen under the belief that the "standards" we have today are guaranteed, this is not the case at all.
Laws and standards can be changed if not protected, this is why it is very short sighted when people attack the labour movement for continuing to fight maintaining the gains made as well as for more rights and more fair redistribution of wealth. Companies are fighting for the opposit, they want to be able to run their business with as little resistance or cost as possible, everything unions have fought for that both Union and non-union workers enjoy as rights is always at risk, you are kidding yourself if you think that if unions stop fighting for maintaing and improving what we have that companies will simply maintain the gains we have and not look for ways to reduce our rights and benefits I can only ask you this, why would they be doing it now? It doesn't take long for things to go south when you put yourself at the mercy of the greedy.
People knew slavery was unfair when it was around, but they didn't give it up willingly, what sense is there in putting ourselves in a spot to move back closer to how things were instead of continuing to distance ourselves from it?
|