Quote:
Originally Posted by #-3
Why would any employer ever agree to that?
GDP is an aggregate, and does not match any individual industry perfectly, it also pre-supposes that the salaries either started at the right level or were to low to begin with. Maybe the salaries were fair or more than fair in a particular negotiation for whatever reason, and a market adjustment downwards (relative to inflation) is needed to create what would be a fair deal for both sides. Maybe the governments/businesses ability to collect revenue relative to inflation does not keep pace, and they literally cannot afford to match (this is basically what happened when the NDP was in power, and the teachers did accept that). Maybe for whatever reason there are a plethora of qualified and willing people in the labour pool, and the market just doesn't value that particular workforce at the level it did before, letting the employer in the case of teachers offer a lower salary, hire more teachers, and offer a better more personalized product to the students.
I am not sure any of those are the case in this negotiation, but as the province or employer in general it would be insane to lock yourself into that type of agreement.
|
I also think people focus too much on the salary, which is an important but small factor of a collective agreement.
What good is a huge raise if the other items in the agreement suck?
You may not come out ahead with a larger raise over taking the 3% per year and factoring in the value of the other items in the agreement.