Idiot unions in Toronto

[Flames89]

All I know is that if while I am walking my garbage into a large, festering, garbage dump - and some placard carrying union members starts yelling at me, it will test my patience like no other.

[jtfrogger]

Originally Posted by Dion

Unions can bring companies to thier knees and sometimes put them out of business with thier excessive demands. There was 3 Safeway stores in Thunder Bay some years ago that closed it's doors due to excessive union demands.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2002/0...way020606.html

FYI, that was not a permanent closure.

http://www.ufcw.org/your_industry/re...thunderbay.cfm

[Hack&Lube]

Unions are vestiges of the last century and just little parcels of communism. They have no place in the modern world where labour laws and social development protect employees decentely. Unions are just complete distortions of natural economic reality that make workers slack and feel they deserve entitlement...or suck union dues from the honest workers to the big wigs of the unions who are no better than the fat cats of corporations.

[jtfrogger]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Or Ben's Restaurant in Montreal.

For those who aren't familiar, Ben's was a famed Montreal landmark. Over the 98 years in which it was open, the deli was frequented by many Quebec and international celebrities including Pierre Trudeau, Paul Martin, Rene Levesque, Bette Middler, Maurice Richard, Jean Beleveau, and just about every other member of the Montreal Canadiens over the years. Leonard Cohen was known to write many of his songs and poems while occupying a booth at Ben's late at night. It was also chosen by the government of Canada to be the store in which the two dollar coin was launched.

Then their staff went on strike in 2006. The owners concluded that they couldn't meet the salary demands of the union while still providing their customers with a decent lunch for under $10, so they decided to close up shop permenantly. So a Montreal institution which had remained as a small, family-owned business for nearly a century was forced out of business by a greedy union. Needless to say, the 25 staff employed by the deli all lost their jobs as a consequence.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/st...s20061215.html

As much as I hate unions, I don't think that restaurant would have lasted much longer even without the union. The owner was 83 years old and they hadn't updated anything since the 50s. You can't run a business that is 100 years old by neglecting it for 50 years. If anything, the union accelerated what would have happened within three years.

Here is a blog entry I found about it: http://www.blork.org/blorkblog/2006/...eal-1908-2006/

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Unions are vestiges of the last century and just little parcels of communism. They have no place in the modern world where labour laws and social development protect employees decentely. Unions are just complete distortions of natural economic reality that make workers slack and feel they deserve entitlement...or suck union dues from the honest workers to the big wigs of the unions who are no better than the fat cats of corporations.

I agree with a less extreme version of your viewpoint. A union leader last week told me that the city wanted us to sign a three year deal but they made it a no deal because they need something to keep them busy. Now he said it jokingly but you have to imagine there is a bit of truth in there. These guys sole purpose is union agreements. Signing a long term deal would put them out of work. SUCKAS!!!

Also just a note that I don't think unions in government or essential services are a bad thing. In some cases they are a necessary evil and keep politics out of the workplace.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by jtfrogger

FYI, that was not a permanent closure.

http://www.ufcw.org/your_industry/re...thunderbay.cfm

You have to remember that it took the closure of 3 stores before the union saw the cold reality. Took em 8 months before they voted again. They could have accepted the companys offer before and avoided the stores being closed.

They played a game of chicken and got burnt. The losers in all this were the employees as they lost 8 months of wages as they stupidly trusted thier union. In the meantime the union big wigs were still collecting thier full wages.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Toronto is starting to look like one big garbage dump

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_35609.aspx

The flies are starting to breed enmass due to the rich food sources. It won't be long til people start getting sick.

Also the rodent population will boom during this strike.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Unions are vestiges of the last century and just little parcels of communism. They have no place in the modern world where labour laws and social development protect employees decentely. Unions are just complete distortions of natural economic reality that make workers slack and feel they deserve entitlement...or suck union dues from the honest workers to the big wigs of the unions who are no better than the fat cats of corporations.

CP is a funny place. We end up having the same debates with the same people who just restate what has already been said 10 times before in other threads. Person X says "Boo", Person Y says "Hoo", Person Z says "Me too", the thread dies, new thread three months later and Person X says "Boo", Person Y says "Hoo" and Person Z says "Me too". Infinite merry go round.

Let me start by saying that I work for a government department BECAUSE there is a union. I'm a project manager / team leader of systems development (and before someone points it out, I am typing this on my lunch break). But I have worked in the private sector on and off throughout my career and have settled where I am after comparing the two.

Since we've gotten to the "unions have no place in the modern world" stage of this discussion I'll bring up my examples that I have put forth before and nobody has had an answer for.

#1 - I once worked for a company where our contract stipulated that our team had to have 20 years combined experience in software X. We only had 10 years combined experience so they quickly grabbed a guy off the street that had 15 years experience to be able to keep with the terms of the contract. However this guy was a total letch. He was 50 years old and was constantly hitting on the 19 year old trainee. He would take his chair from his office, park it in her office and talk for hours despite her repeated protests that she wanted him to leave. On more than one occassion I went in and chased the guy out of her office. After exhausting all other avenues, she wrote a grievance letter to the regional head demanding something be done. Something was done. Since they couldn't fire the guy and stay within the terms of the contract, they fired the girl "for cause" because she wasn't getting her work done on time (because she was dealing with this guy hassling her). That would never happen here.
#2 - I was with a company, again in Halifax, where the regional manager had made a decree that all of us on my project had to work mandatory 20 hours a week overtime. However, a fellow under a collegue of mine was taking care of a sick and dying mother. My collegue told him that she would talk to management and ensure that he could be an exception to the rule. The company fired her "for cause" for "not being a team management player". That would never happen here.
#3 - Continuation of #2. They now had a vacant project manager position to fill. There were 3 or 4 guys that were more than qualified to do the job. However, the regional manager played on the company hockey team. He gave the job to the unqualified hockey player on the agreement that he join the hockey team. If that does happen here, there is recourse and grievance processes where the union can be brought in to challenge any abuse of power.

I've got PLENTY more examples of where I've seen abuses of power in private industry. And yes, I've had my share of run-ins with the union where they have pissed me the hell off. But given the situations above, I just couldn't work for those companies anymore. I can say unequivically that I am working where I am BECAUSE I have union representation.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

#1 - I once worked for a company where our contract stipulated that our team had to have 20 years combined experience in software X. We only had 10 years combined experience so they quickly grabbed a guy off the street that had 15 years experience to be able to keep with the terms of the contract. However this guy was a total letch. He was 50 years old and was constantly hitting on the 19 year old trainee. He would take his chair from his office, park it in her office and talk for hours despite her repeated protests that she wanted him to leave. On more than one occassion I went in and chased the guy out of her office. After exhausting all other avenues, she wrote a grievance letter to the regional head demanding something be done. Something was done. Since they couldn't fire the guy and stay within the terms of the contract, they fired the girl "for cause" because she wasn't getting her work done on time (because she was dealing with this guy hassling her). That would never happen here.

I'm just trying to understand if that comment was supposed to be pro-union or anti-union.

Basically what you are saying is HR couldn't go after the guy because of the terms of the contract would cost many people their jobs. So a union would cause the company to lose a contract and have to lay people off- how would that be "better?"

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

CP is a funny place. We end up having the same debates with the same people who just restate what has already been said 10 times before in other threads. Person X says "Boo", Person Y says "Hoo", Person Z says "Me too", the thread dies, new thread three months later and Person X says "Boo", Person Y says "Hoo" and Person Z says "Me too". Infinite merry go round.

Let me start by saying that I work for a government department BECAUSE there is a union. I'm a project manager / team leader of systems development (and before someone points it out, I am typing this on my lunch break). But I have worked in the private sector on and off throughout my career and have settled where I am after comparing the two.

Since we've gotten to the "unions have no place in the modern world" stage of this discussion I'll bring up my examples that I have put forth before and nobody has had an answer for.

#1 - I once worked for a company where our contract stipulated that our team had to have 20 years combined experience in software X. We only had 10 years combined experience so they quickly grabbed a guy off the street that had 15 years experience to be able to keep with the terms of the contract. However this guy was a total letch. He was 50 years old and was constantly hitting on the 19 year old trainee. He would take his chair from his office, park it in her office and talk for hours despite her repeated protests that she wanted him to leave. On more than one occassion I went in and chased the guy out of her office. After exhausting all other avenues, she wrote a grievance letter to the regional head demanding something be done. Something was done. Since they couldn't fire the guy and stay within the terms of the contract, they fired the girl "for cause" because she wasn't getting her work done on time (because she was dealing with this guy hassling her). That would never happen here.

Right, the situation would just continue on as is because neither party would be fired. This isn't an argument for a union, it's an argument against negligent hiring.

#2 - I was with a company, again in Halifax, where the regional manager had made a decree that all of us on my project had to work mandatory 20 hours a week overtime. However, a fellow under a collegue of mine was taking care of a sick and dying mother. My collegue told him that she would talk to management and ensure that he could be an exception to the rule. The company fired her "for cause" for "not being a team management player". That would never happen here.

An unfortunate situation no doubt, but picking out extreme examples doesn't really prove anything. A non-union environment may grant the employer the ability to be insensitive, but it also grants plenty of employees the ability to be lazy leeches. For every example of someone not getting protection that a union could have provided I can throw out an example of a union protecting someone who doesn't deserve any protection.

#3 - Continuation of #2. They now had a vacant project manager position to fill. There were 3 or 4 guys that were more than qualified to do the job. However, the regional manager played on the company hockey team. He gave the job to the unqualified hockey player on the agreement that he join the hockey team. If that does happen here, there is recourse and grievance processes where the union can be brought in to challenge any abuse of power.

There's legal recourse in non-union settings as well, it's not as if you were left with no options. Even under a union review standard there would have to be pretty blatant evidence that the person selected completely lacked the necessary qualifications. If an argument could be made that he lacked in certain areas but was better in others it becomes an issue of managerial discretion. If you're arguing that a union should be able to overturn the discretional decisions of a company I think you've just supported the stance that unions are encumbrances.

I've got PLENTY more examples of where I've seen abuses of power in private industry. And yes, I've had my share of run-ins with the union where they have pissed me the hell off. But given the situations above, I just couldn't work for those companies anymore. I can say unequivically that I am working where I am BECAUSE I have union representation.

I don't think anyone is arguing that union representation can't benefit anyone, evidently it's a good thing for you. The argument is that it causes more problems and encourages more abuses that are simply a blight on an effective company.

BTW, sorry for including my comment in your original post, I can never get the multiple quotes thing to work.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

#1 - I once worked for a company where our contract stipulated that our team had to have 20 years combined experience in software X. We only had 10 years combined experience so they quickly grabbed a guy off the street that had 15 years experience to be able to keep with the terms of the contract. However this guy was a total letch. He was 50 years old and was constantly hitting on the 19 year old trainee. He would take his chair from his office, park it in her office and talk for hours despite her repeated protests that she wanted him to leave. On more than one occassion I went in and chased the guy out of her office. After exhausting all other avenues, she wrote a grievance letter to the regional head demanding something be done. Something was done. Since they couldn't fire the guy and stay within the terms of the contract, they fired the girl "for cause" because she wasn't getting her work done on time (because she was dealing with this guy hassling her). That would never happen here.

Somebody should have taken that creep around back for a tune up. Frankly i'm surprised she didn't go to the labout board and raise the issue of sexual harrassment.

Today that creep would have been fired for sexual harrassment.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I'm just trying to understand if that comment was supposed to be pro-union or anti-union. Basically what you are saying is HR couldn't go after the guy because of the terms of the contract would cost many people their jobs. So a union would cause the company to lose a contract and have to lay people off- how would that be "better?"

There were 100 things the company COULD have done. Certainly firing the girl for cause wasn't the appropriate thing to do. She was a damn smart cookie; she just couldn't get her work done by the deadlines with this guy hassling her all day long. They weren't even LOOKING for a replacement for this guy so they could fire him. You can't possibly be defending the company's decision to fire the girl?

And Dion, there are many, many, many people that will just go find a new job than go through the hassle of filing a complaint with the labour board. It takes a LOT of your time and a lot of effort to document your case. Even moreso if she were to file a wrongful dismissal suit. I haven't seen the woman since the day she was fired and maybe she DID file a complaint and I just never heard about it. But knowing her and that she didn't have a whole lot invested in this company (ie pension), it was probably easier to find a new job and start again.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Isn't this called capitalism? If you can't afford to pay your employees, you go out of business. That's the deal.

Or were these people supposed to take less and work in crappy circumstances so the owner could keep his prices down? Nobody else is expected to do that.

I would disagree with your point that nobody else is expected to do that. There are numerous companies right now that are giving out paycuts, or cutting back people's hours to save costs. It's something that these companies have deemed necessary to keep themselves afloat while the economy is down. Of course this sucks for these people and they have every right to be upset, but most of them realize that ultimately, if it means they get to keep their job, it's acceptable. Unions don't seem to get this, they always want more and rarely seem willing to give concessions in return.

I'm a person who values hard work - I respect anyone who works hard every day to contribute something to society, be they the head of a major corporation or the staff that empty my garbage can at the end of each day. My problem with unions is that they don't seem to value hard work; advancing within a union is often more about seniority than effort or quality of work. In fact, from what I've heard, it often happens that union members are actually discouraged from hard work in order not to make the other members look bad. I'm by no means saying this is always the case, but how could anyone possibly defend this attitude?

I'm in the camp that thinks that unions at one time were a great thing, and very necessary, but have served out their purpose. With the government establishing labour laws, unions are no longer about securing fair wages and safe working environments and have become about getting more, more, more. They seem to me to be a haven for those who are unwilling to be judged on their own merits, and prefer to have someone else fight for them.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

You can't possibly be defending the company's decision to fire the girl?

No, what I was saying is that how you described how the union would have handled the situation; it didn't seem to be any better.

As somebody else mentioned; I'm curious as to how long ago this happened. Because it would seem to me that current attitudes/policies towards harassment would have taken care of this.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

It's easy for people in Alberta, where labour is probably in higher demand then anywhere else in North America, to be anti-union. But I wonder what the ratio of non-union to union employees who are posting in this thread at work is?

[Dion]

nm

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

It's easy for people in Alberta, where labour is probably in higher demand then anywhere else in North America, to be anti-union. But I wonder what the ratio of non-union to union employees who are posting in this thread at work is?

I've worked on both sides of the fence. I'll take a non union enviroment anyday.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Dion

I've worked on both sides of the fence. I'll take a non union enviroment anyday.

You've worked outside of Alberta?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

You've worked outside of Alberta?

My reponse was in reference to your question of what the ratio of non-union to union employees who are posting in this thread at work is. I've worked in both enviroments (union- non union)

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

It's easy for people in Alberta, where labour is probably in higher demand then anywhere else in North America, to be anti-union. But I wonder what the ratio of non-union to union employees who are posting in this thread at work is?

Do union workes know how to operate a computer j/k The head of a large union - the CAW didnt even graduate grade 10.