Canada Post likely will be locked out/on strike - July 2

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Two people doing the work of one to the detriment of the company. A union zealot's wet dream, right there.

Why would a you assume union workers are happy to see something detrimental happen to their company? While you can make the argument asking for higher wages hurts a company's profit, if it is a reasonable and fair amount and keeps your workers happy, to call it detrimental is a bit of reach. If their company goes under there isn't a union in the world that will be able to save their job so unions try to get the best deal they can within the means of their employer.

If what you wrote is what you really think it might be a good idea to do a little research on the labour/union movement and what they really are about.

[Dynamic]

Just going to chime in on my experience on Unions since we are derailed anyways.

First of all I have never worked in a union. I have worked at a pretty big forestry company for over 11 years, including the last 7 as a tradesperson. We have union and non union mills and our is a non union mill. From what I can tell in my years of experience is that if you give it your all, don't take shortcuts, and in general give an honest days work you will be rewarded union or non union.

My only dealing working directly with union tradesmen was when I was doing my apprenticeship at NAIT. I got teamed up with a union guy on a project and me knowing the drill knew that if we finished early we could go home early. So I'm trying to get our assignment done (making hydraulic circuits) so I can go home and this Union guy was telling me to take her easy and lets just make this last the day....??? He basically stalled the whole assignment and instead of working with me he made sure we were the last group done exactly as class ended. It was infuriating and even just trying to reason with him was maddening. I just like to get stuff done and that was NOT his mindset at all.

And the union guys in our class, IIRC there was only 5 or so, where all the bottom of the class and barely scraping by. I am sure one guy did not make it. Another interesting fact is that all these Union guys were all on EI just scraping by while many of us non union forestry guys were being paid a full wage while at school, paid tuition, and a living allowance on top. I was treated very well despite not being union.

I know I have no idea how a real union works, but this is just my limited real life experience dealing with union tradespeople.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Yes it was a serious question, any job you agree to work at has pros and cons that vary from person to person. You are free to look consider the options and choose your situation accordingly

This is the difference you fail to recognize: all of those other pros and cons are determined by the employer. They are making a decision to offer, or not offer, certain benefits that might attract better employees. Fewer benefits might save the company money; more might attract better staff that allow for more productivity, making the company more successful.

That is a risk / reward based decision, a balancing process that's at the discretion of the business owner. Furthermore, it's subject to negotiation between the prospective employee and the employer - if the employer wants the employee badly enough, it can decide to provide certain additional benefits (e.g. additional money), or forego demands (e.g. you don't have to work on friday). It cannot say "you don't have to be a member of this union". The existence of a unionized environment is foisted on the business, and by any employee who might otherwise want to work for that business, by a third party that can't be negotiated with.

you can even join a union work site and try to decertify the union.

This, meanwhile, is completely unrealistic and you know it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is the difference you fail to recognize: all of those other pros and cons are determined by the employer. They are making a decision to offer, or not offer, certain benefits that might attract better employees. Fewer benefits might save the company money; more might attract better staff that allow for more productivity, making the company more successful.

That is a risk / reward based decision, a balancing process that's at the discretion of the business owner. Furthermore, it's subject to negotiation between the prospective employee and the employer - if the employer wants the employee badly enough, it can decide to provide certain additional benefits (e.g. additional money), or forego demands (e.g. you don't have to work on friday). It cannot say "you don't have to be a member of this union". The existence of a unionized environment is foisted on the business, and by any employee who might otherwise want to work for that business, by a third party that can't be negotiated with.


This, meanwhile, is completely unrealistic and you know it.

The Labour Relations Act is only foisted upon employers in the same way that the Income Tax Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Acts are "foisted" upon employers: ie, legislation passed by a democratically elected government. If that isn't enough legitimacy for you, the right to bargain collectively has been consistently found by the SCC to be protected by the Charter.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

There's a difference there that I would think is obvious: one is actual government intervention on all employers equally (the government is collecting taxes, or regulating the employer). The other is a third party that has the right to collectively bargain, but not the obligation.

Additionally, those regulations are universal - it's not like there are certain places you can work that aren't subject to the Income Tax Act, much less non-governmental third party entities that can decide for the employer and all employees whether or not they're going to be subject to tax.

EDIT: Note that I'm not saying that unions are inherently a good or bad thing or that unions shouldn't exist. I was only pointing out that it's ridiculous to say, effectively, what was being said: that this is a characteristic of an individual workplace that can be weighed as a pro or con by an employee like any other, be it salary, benefits, working hours etc.; and if you don't like it, go work somewhere else - you're not being forced into anything. That is false. It's not at all analogous to those other individual workplace characteristics.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There's a difference there that I would think is obvious: one is actual government intervention on all employers equally (the government is collecting taxes, or regulating the employer). The other is a third party that has the right to collectively bargain, but not the obligation.

Additionally, those regulations are universal - it's not like there are certain places you can work that aren't subject to the Income Tax Act, much less non-governmental third party entities that can decide for the employer and all employees whether or not they're going to be subject to tax.

EDIT: Note that I'm not saying that unions are inherently a good or bad thing, just that it's ridiculous to say, effectively, what was being said: namely that this is a characteristic of an individual workplace that can be weighed as a pro or con by an employee like any other, be it salary, benefits, working hours etc.; and if you don't like it, go work somewhere else - you're not being forced into anything. That is false. It's not at all analogous to those other individual workplace characteristics.

The Forestry Act applies to me even if I choose not to cut down trees. The Labour Relations Act applies to all workplaces even if employees choose not to organize and certify a union. I don't see the distinction.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

You don't see the difference between government prescribing rules that govern the business and the right of a third party to influence the business? You really don't see the difference, from the employee's perspective, between regulations over how the business is allowed to cut down trees, and the existence of a union the employee must join to represent him if he works there? I'm not sure I can help make that one clearer, it seems clear to me.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dynamic

Just going to chime in on my experience on Unions since we are derailed anyways.

First of all I have never worked in a union. I have worked at a pretty big forestry company for over 11 years, including the last 7 as a tradesperson. We have union and non union mills and our is a non union mill. From what I can tell in my years of experience is that if you give it your all, don't take shortcuts, and in general give an honest days work you will be rewarded union or non union.

My only dealing working directly with union tradesmen was when I was doing my apprenticeship at NAIT. I got teamed up with a union guy on a project and me knowing the drill knew that if we finished early we could go home early. So I'm trying to get our assignment done (making hydraulic circuits) so I can go home and this Union guy was telling me to take her easy and lets just make this last the day....??? He basically stalled the whole assignment and instead of working with me he made sure we were the last group done exactly as class ended. It was infuriating and even just trying to reason with him was maddening. I just like to get stuff done and that was NOT his mindset at all.

And the union guys in our class, IIRC there was only 5 or so, where all the bottom of the class and barely scraping by. I am sure one guy did not make it. Another interesting fact is that all these Union guys were all on EI just scraping by while many of us non union forestry guys were being paid a full wage while at school, paid tuition, and a living allowance on top. I was treated very well despite not being union.

I know I have no idea how a real union works, but this is just my limited real life experience dealing with union tradespeople.

I'd be interested in the details as to why the union apprentices did not have their course paid for. I've known a lot of local tradesmen who's apprentiship courses were paid for.

I'm not in favour of people dogging it on the job, you're being paid to do a job. I do however believe in setting reasonable expectations. Employers need work done so they hire people to do it. A younger worker is likely able to work at a higher pace than older worker, but that pace is likely unsustainable, over time that worker's pace will inevitably slow down. Now if this happens around age 40 after 20 years of hard work is it really fair to expect the same pace? You knew that employee was going to age, is it better to just work a guy to death and then boot him out the door when he can't meet the maximum standard or is it better to maybe set the expectation a little lower so you can keep that employee long term and not have a need to retrain more employees to replace them when they either break down, or realize this job is dead end since they will never last.

I'm doing so you raise productivity costs, but you lower training costs, general wages (do to it becoming more desirable work), workers compensation costs and lost productivity due to injury. You are also better able to plan and structure your business long term without worrying that you're workers productivity will be dropping off a cliff at any time. The best way to promote better productivity is to give people incentive bonuses on top of an existing reasonable wage, that way that employee will know their work is appreciated and also have a sense of security that they're worker values their hard work and is not looking to chew them up and spit them out, I don't know about everyone but I think most people who felt that reassured would and appreciated would show their boss by giving it their best. Of course there'd always be a handleful a bad apples who wouldn't do that but that's life, you gotta go with whatever gives you the best probability for success.

Look at high risk short shelf life jobs, jobs like a crab fisherman, those jobs pay insane amounts because very few want to or can do them and the workers rarely last, if they could make those jobs safer and more worthwhile from a career perspective they would.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Why is he or she just standing there? That's bad management, not a bad union.

Well tax dollars are paying for it so draw your own conclusion as to the quality of management.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Can you give specifics on what kind of work was involved here? I'd hate to make any assumptions on this incident, but without anymore details it sounds like that company allowed themselves to get played

Can't be more specific but I think I know where you are going with this, the work is nothing strenuous or dangerous in any way. As mentioned above this is tax dollars so we are the ones getting played.

[Makarov]

Third parties influence businesses all the time. For example, the Law Society influences how your firm operates thanks to the Law Society Act.

Is it somehow less democratic than legislation that requires one to be a member of the Law Society in order to practice law? Obviously, the legislated requirement of membership in each case serve different purposes, but

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Well tax dollars are paying for it so draw your own conclusion as to the quality of management.

So you acknowledge that this isn't a union issue after all. That's progress.

Now we can move on to trading anecdotal stories and stereotypes about the relative efficacy of private and public sector managers.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is the difference you fail to recognize: all of those other pros and cons are determined by the employer. They are making a decision to offer, or not offer, certain benefits that might attract better employees. Fewer benefits might save the company money; more might attract better staff that allow for more productivity, making the company more successful.

That is a risk / reward based decision, a balancing process that's at the discretion of the business owner. Furthermore, it's subject to negotiation between the prospective employee and the employer - if the employer wants the employee badly enough, it can decide to provide certain additional benefits (e.g. additional money), or forego demands (e.g. you don't have to work on friday). It cannot say "you don't have to be a member of this union". The existence of a unionized environment is foisted on the business, and by any employee who might otherwise want to work for that business, by a third party that can't be negotiated with.


This, meanwhile, is completely unrealistic and you know it.

The decision to work there rests entirely on the worker, no company can force you to be hired by them. The existing work rules were not put their against your will, why would they give someone who doesn't work there a say. If you are that opposed to unions, don't work in a unionized place. I'm not opposed to non union companies who treat their workers fairly, so I would work at one if it felt like the right choice for me, but even though I would never work at a Walmart because I disagree with their treatment of workers, let's say hypothetically I did apply and got hired, knowing full well that they are non union, I wouldn't start working and then complain that I had no choice but to work in a place with no job security, fair treatment, defined benefits or pay structure. I would either try to unionize, and if that failed, quit; or chosen to not accept the job in the first place. If I didn't like unions I wouldn't apply to unionized jobs and then complain that I should have a say in what decisions and rules were made before I got there.

Also, a lot of people see things like the security and benefits unionized employees get as enough of an incentive that employers don't need to sweeten the deal.

"You don't have to work Friday's, Oh you changed your mind ok you don't have to work Monday's either, I'm desperate!" Are you in favour of seeing the employer at the mercy of the employee? When you try to argue that it is good to give the employer the ability to let their employee dictate what he gets in the same post you are trying to make an argument against unions, it really creates a confusing mixed message. Quite ironic to be honest with you.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Makarov

So you acknowledge that this isn't a union issue after all. That's progress.

No I didn't but thanks for reminding me why I used to have you on ignore.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Third parties influence businesses all the time. For example, the Law Society influences how your firm operates thanks to the Law Society Act.

Is it somehow less democratic than legislation that requires one to be a member of the Law Society in order to practice law? Obviously, the legislated requirement of membership in each case serve different purposes, but

Just to add: Interestingly, your membership in the Law Society "artificially" increases your bargainng power with your employer (or your clients) too (by restricting the supply of persons offering legal services).

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

"You don't have to work Friday's, Oh you changed your mind ok you don't have to work Monday's either, I'm desperate!" Are you in favour of seeing the employer at the mercy of the employee? When you try to argue that it is good to give the employer the ability to let their employee dictate what he gets in the same post you are trying to make an argument against unions, it really creates a confusing mixed message. Quite ironic to be honest with you.

This makes no sense, you realize that, right? The point is that there is a balancing of interests between the employer and the individual employee - the employer is at the "mercy" of the employee to exactly the degree they value the employee. There's no third party involved in that give-and-take exercise dictating terms to either party. They set them themselves.

There's just an obvious difference as soon as you introduce that third party making specific demands of both sides as to how their relationship should be governed that neither side has any real authority over. I'm not saying unions are bad, I'm saying the analogy doesn't hold.

Anyway, I'm just going to bow out because I have no particular dog in this fight and specifically said I didn't want to get sucked into this festival of motivated reasoning. Carry on.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Why would a you assume union workers are happy to see something detrimental happen to their company? While you can make the argument asking for higher wages hurts a company's profit, if it is a reasonable and fair amount and keeps your workers happy, to call it detrimental is a bit of reach. If their company goes under there isn't a union in the world that will be able to save their job so unions try to get the best deal they can within the means of their employer.

If what you wrote is what you really think it might be a good idea to do a little research on the labour/union movement and what they really are about.

I said union zealot. That word has a specific meaning.

You, for instance, are a union member. And one who has been quite reasonable throughout this thread. Resurrection demonstrates the attitude of the zealot. While the two of you are on the same side of the overall debate, I am quite certain you see the differences between you two, particularly in attitude and combativeness, that the rest of us do.

Edit: I would add that what the union movement was about is not really what it is about today. IMNSHO, modern unions tend to display many behavioural traits similar to that of the employers they view as being enemies. One aspect in particular that I was actually talking about elsewhere today being the trend of consolidation and concentration of power and control that has occurred over the years. One has to ask how unions with literally millions of members representing diverse groups in differing industries can hope to operate in the best interest of all members. That concentration of power at these largest levels also results in another change - one of replacing a union's former attitude of being about pride and unity being with being about entitlement and selfishness. Again, character traits demonstrated by your erstwhile companion.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Jacks

No I didn't but thanks for reminding me why I used to have you on ignore.

Genuinely curious: what convinced you to give me a second chance?

The ironic thing is that I now practice employer-side labour law but still feel compelled to chime in and at least try to defend/justify even just the right to collective bargaining.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Well tax dollars are paying for it so draw your own conclusion as to the quality of management.


Can't be more specific but I think I know where you are going with this, the work is nothing strenuous or dangerous in any way. As mentioned above this is tax dollars so we are the ones getting played.

Well as a taxpayer I would say that manager played us good and now people are trying to blame the union for it. An employee needs to follow the direction of management, as long as the request is safe to do and is not in violation of the agreement. If that employee had nothing to do and was asked to perform a reasonable task, the union has zero recourse. None. So if the company said the union told them to not let him, and they had no grounds to make that request, shame on that supervisor for not having a clue. And if there was a clause in their public sector contract which states "the company will pay workers to stand and do nothing when their is no work, and in such cases the company is forbidden from accepting voluntary help from the union member to perform a task he is capable of performing and do not put the employee in any danger", then as a taxpayer I say shame on whatever company representative accepted this as part of an agreement. I'm clearly a union supporter, but even I would see the need for a lock out if that was in the union's demands lol

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Genuinely curious: what convinced you to give me a second chance?

I sometimes browse on my phone not logged in and 95% of your posts are good. We'll just never agree on anything political or business related.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Well as a taxpayer I would say that manager played us good and now people are trying to blame the union for it.

The union said no way, it wasn't in their job description so it wasn't happening. Public service are the worst for this stuff, the managers are mostly all people who came up throught the union. Nobody has any interest in fighting for what is right when they can just do nothing and the money still pours in.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I won't kowtow to team conservative here. So the ongoing personal attacks are expected. Fill your boots.

Because you are so above personal attacks. This is your body of work so far in the thread.

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Why go on with this insane argument?

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Even though you claim you've been in a union I have to think it was either a long time ago, or, you got canned and the union couldn't get your job back so now you have an ax to grind.

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Well, that's a wonderfully spurious argument, equally vague with no substance.

Originally Posted by Resurrection

The only part of your post that seems valid is

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Oh, someone in management is bashing unions. Fascinating.

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I probably have a lot more experience than you. And judging by your opinions, I would be willing to wager you've been no where near a unionized shop floor. Or perhaps you've been with 5 unions because you keep getting fired for being useless, and those evil unions cant get you your job back.

Who knows.

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I honestly don't know how to respond to this. It's so far from the normal and doesn't even make sense.

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I made a very general statement of them being the worst people on Earth.. if you are so daft to honestly take that as they're worse than people who commit murder and treason thats your fault for being stupid

Originally Posted by Resurrection

The intellectual right strikes again

Originally Posted by Resurrection

What colour is the sky in your world? What a deliciously naive comment.

Originally Posted by Resurrection

God what a stupid comment.

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Also, scabs who cross the line are the worst form of scum on the planet.