2011 summer of strikes

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Don't generalize.

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

Pretty ignorant comment and I'm not quite sure if you're for real or not.

I'm generalizing and that doesn't apply to everyone. Unless I'm in some fields like statistic where government work is pretty much the only option, I don't know why I would want to work for the city instead of Encana.

Just like you said, Encana pays better and has the same or even better benefits than City. So the reason for someone to pick City over Encana is mostly about job security.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

In no way are any of the people above 'rich.'

A full pension makes them rich.

AC's main sticking point is their $2 billion pension liability.

[Northendzone]

i find the idea of DB pensions and banking sick days to be pretty sweet. imagine being able to retire years early because you dragged yourself into work on days when you were sick......seems liek everyone knows fo some guy that retired from the railway or some other crown corp that is receiving a monthly pension cheque of $4,000......

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Addick

In those 30 years, have all managers and owners stopped being greedy and now refuse to exploit/abuse workers if they are able to do so?

Unions are neither perfect nor useless.

Btw, I strongly agree with you that some people have very wrong ideas when it comes to career/wage entitlement.

Everyone's greedy, no more or less so over the passage of time. Owners want to make larger profits and labour wants to get paid the most for doing the least. The part that has removed a lot of value from unions and essentially what changed the game is the fact that the world is accepting of a mobile work force. If it was the old days where everyone only worked for one employer during their lives there simply weren't higher level jobs available at other companies for a worker to move to if he/she was getting abused at their workplace after they had put in their dues for years.

Now a days when it's rare to have someone stay in one place more than 5 years, it's a real tough sell for me to sympathize with some University educated, white collar brat whining about abuses in the private sector when there are legions of jobs out there due to increased turnover. You're no longer married to your current employer, if there's abuses you have way more power than back in the day. As for the manufacturing sector and the service sector, these are now lower middle class to working poor jobs. Generally, you need more than a high school diploma to live an average lifestyle. This is actually progress that productivity in human capital is expected to come from working with our brains and not our hands.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Shazam

A full pension makes them rich.

AC's main sticking point is their $2 billion pension liability.

No, it just absolves themselves from managing their money properly while young because their old age is insured.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

No, it just absolves themselves from managing their money properly while young because their old age is insured.

Yes, very true

But it's fairly easy to understand why they go on strike - lots of free money at the end of the rainbow is awfully tempting.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Everyone's greedy, no more or less so over the passage of time. Owners want to make larger profits and labour wants to get paid the most for doing the least. The part that has removed a lot of value from unions and essentially what changed the game is the fact that the world is accepting of a mobile work force. If it was the old days where everyone only worked for one employer during their lives there simply weren't higher level jobs available at other companies for a worker to move to if he/she was getting abused at their workplace after they had put in their dues for years.

Now a days when it's rare to have someone stay in one place more than 5 years, it's a real tough sell for me to sympathize with some University educated, white collar brat whining about abuses in the private sector when there are legions of jobs out there due to increased turnover. You're no longer married to your current employer, if there's abuses you have way more power than back in the day. As for the manufacturing sector and the service sector, these are now lower middle class to working poor jobs. Generally, you need more than a high school diploma to live an average lifestyle. This is actually progress that productivity in human capital is expected to come from working with our brains and not our hands.

GET OUT OF MY MIND!

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

Pretty ignorant comment and I'm not quite sure if you're for real or not. But yes, thousands of people that work at the City care very much about their related fields and their career development. And no, we are not the envy of the public sector. Maybe in terms of benefits and pensions, but there is no way you can compare a municipal workers wage with his private sector counterpart. Especially in the oil industry.

Most studies I have seen peg public sector workers as being paid significantly more than their private sector workers, especially when comparing apples to apples. http://www.cfib.ca/research/reports/rr3077.pdf

Trying to compare average municipal workers to average oil industry is rather useless because the qualifications and skillsets are so different. Kind of like saying why would I choose to pick fruit when I could be CEO of Microsoft and get way better...?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Shazam

GET OUT OF MY MIND!

You'll be happy to note that you and I depart ways when referring to Kaynesian Economics. An add on to your quote in your sig could be that "Kaynesian economics is the belief that unionized government workers would happily relinquish their stimulus funded jobs to help refund the government budget the second the economy returns back into an expansionary phase"

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

You'll be happy to note that you and I depart ways when referring to Kaynesian Economics. An add on to your quote in your sig could be that "Kaynesian economics is the belief that unionized government workers would happily relinquish their stimulus funded jobs to help refund the government budget the second the economy returns back into an expansionary phase"

Oh, I don't actually believe those quotes I put in my sig. I put them in there because I find them rather amazing.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Most studies I have seen peg public sector workers as being paid significantly more than their private sector workers, especially when comparing apples to apples. http://www.cfib.ca/research/reports/rr3077.pdf

Trying to compare average municipal workers to average oil industry is rather useless because the qualifications and skillsets are so different. Kind of like saying why would I choose to pick fruit when I could be CEO of Microsoft and get way better...?

Here is a quote from an assessment of that study claiming bias...

Conclusions from the independent assessment of CFIB study by David Macdonald:

• The methodology used in the CFIB study would not be accepted in a second-year university economics course.
• Every serious unbiased study done by academics has concluded there is a much smaller differential and that much of it is explained by the fact that women in the public sector have to be paid equal pay for work of equal value. The CFIB study ignores the role of women’s wages in the overall picture.
• The evidence also suggests the differential reverses with those in management positions. Actually, in the case of management employees there is a huge gap. Managerial public sector employees earn 41% less than their private sector counterparts. The CFIB doesn’t mention this.
• The serious studies show that differences in unionization rates between the public and private sectors are a major determinant of the wage gap. Of course the variation increases if one compares union to non-union wages. It does in the private sector as well. Unionized workers in the private sector enjoy a wage advantage that amounts to between 7% and 14%, according to credible research.
• Because the CFIB study does not compare union wages to union wages, it misses another important point. Every credible study has concluded that the gap between female and male wages is consistently smaller in unionized workplaces. Again, the CFIB study ignores the role of women’s wages in the overall picture.
• The CFIB study essentially manufactures the wage gap, including benefits. They admit that they didn’t actually have broken down benefits variables in their census data purchase. Instead they inappropriately used unadjusted averages to get their results. Their assumption is based on Statistics Canada research that compares all employees; the benefits of highly qualified public employees are compared to the benefits earned by minimum wage workers in retail or fast food restaurants. When it comes to benefits, the CFIB study throws in everything, uses a completely different standard, and then claims the result is meaningful.
• The CFIB study does not factor in key elements like education and experience, factors considered by every employer in Canada when determining wage levels.
• One academic study has examined the effect of immigrants in the workforce. That study found that there is no difference between the wages of immigrant and non-immigrant workers in the public sector, but there is a lower wage level in the private sector of 14% for immigrant men and 11% for immigrant women.

The third and last two points stand out the most for me. This was a unionized response though, but that was a study for independent business.

Link = http://www.nupge.ca/node/2598

[darklord700]

Detroit, once the golden boy of American economy, now stands as vivid proof of the obsolesce of unions. Important auto makers without the baggage of unions produce higher quality of cars and profits. The big 3 simply cannot compete with imports for the last twenty years precisely for this very reason, the unions.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by darklord700

detroit, once the golden boy of american economy, now stands as vivid proof of the obsolesce of unions. Important auto makers without the baggage of unions produce higher quality of cars and profits. The big 3 simply cannot compete with imports for the last twenty years precisely for this very reason, the unions.

jaw?

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Detroit, once the golden boy of American economy, now stands as vivid proof of the obsolesce of unions. Important auto makers without the baggage of unions produce higher quality of cars and profits. The big 3 simply cannot compete with imports for the last twenty years precisely for this very reason, the unions.

An odd example. Didn't they end up making higher profits because they closed a crap load of manufacturing plants and moved them to countries where they could pay less wages? Not even our minimum wage and existing labour laws could save that business model.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

... it's a real tough sell for me to sympathize with some University educated, white collar brat whining about abuses in the private sector when there are legions of jobs out there due to increased turnover. You're no longer married to your current employer, if there's abuses you have way more power than back in the day.

Sounds like someone lucky enough to be living in an area of very, very low unemployment.

In my case, I was single and had no family commitments, so I did get the hell out of there and moved halfway across the country. My co-workers were not quite so lucky... kids in schools they didn't want to disrupt, elderly parents needing help, spouses in dream jobs that didn't want to leave them...

I don't think the "there are thousands of jobs out there!!!" mantra works in every corner of the globe. If that's your experience, bully for you.

[THE SCUD]

Does anyone get a strong alternative-lifestyle, hemp clothing, farmers market vibe from Devils' Advocate? I feel like he's the penultimate hipster-troll. No one in this day and age can be so pro-union yet know how to operate a keyboard well enough to get on the inter-tubes.

Unions have no significant place in modern society, and your constant stories of corporate wrong doesn't mean unions are right. It means you should have helped thos epoor people find a labour lawyer and agreed to testify. You live in the USA, right? You could have made these people rich on the winnings.

[Kelekin]

Evil versus evil. They're both evil.

Unions once were a great saviour, but as with all things, once you get what you fight for, all that is left is to fight for more.

Feminism and affirmative action are the two best civil examples of this. Feminism seeked equality for women - sure, there are some places here where women may not be treated as equal, but there is also the exact opposite. I was rejected for many jobs in my youth simply due to being male.

Affirmative action is the same. Due to the affirmative action laws still existing in some states (others have gotten rid of them), there is a mandate to still hire those who fit equality over quality. I say this as a minority that it's a joke.

The world changes, and if you don't keep up the world, you get left behind. Unions need to be modernized and reformed.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

Pretty ignorant comment and I'm not quite sure if you're for real or not. But yes, thousands of people that work at the City care very much about their related fields and their career development. And no, we are not the envy of the public sector. Maybe in terms of benefits and pensions, but there is no way you can compare a municipal workers wage with his private sector counterpart. Especially in the oil industry.

It really depends on the position. Low end, unionized positions tend to be paid significantly higher than non-unionized positions, while skilled positions tend to be about the same, but with less flexibility to work more. (ie, the person I know at the city works 35 hours a week, and is expected to not work more, while the average private corporation with a similar position, pays a similar hourly wage, but allows their employees to work more hours. The benefits are at most average for the position as well). This is why so many positions that require unskilled labour are being outsourced, even when the job might not be done quite as well.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Unions have no significant place in modern society, and your constant stories of corporate wrong doesn't mean unions are right. It means you should have helped thos epoor people find a labour lawyer and agreed to testify. You live in the USA, right? You could have made these people rich on the winnings.

Again, a company can let someone go without cause and it is very difficult prove that it was otherwise. Age discrimination, gender discrimination, unjust dismissal.. they are all hard to prove in a court of law and as I mentioned, are costly, time consuming, stressful and more often than not, fruitless as again, it is hard to prove that the dismissal/wrongdoing was or was not due to malfeasance. Heck, they could claim that management really did see potential in that hockey player, claim that the graduate girl was just an economic decision and they were cutting the least experienced staff and that the project leader had, in their opinion, a history of insubordination.

Interesting that you would "suggest" that I am a _troll_ for presenting an opinion different than your own.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Does anyone get a strong alternative-lifestyle, hemp clothing, farmers market vibe from Devils' Advocate? I feel like he's the penultimate hipster-troll. No one in this day and age can be so pro-union yet know how to operate a keyboard well enough to get on the inter-tubes.

Unions have no significant place in modern society, and your constant stories of corporate wrong doesn't mean unions are right. It means you should have helped thos epoor people find a labour lawyer and agreed to testify. You live in the USA, right? You could have made these people rich on the winnings.

I worked for union shops as both an employee and management in a production line industry. I am anti-union because it keeps useless people in their jobs more often than not.

However, If you think that unions could simply be replaced by 'lawyering up' whenever something goes wrong, you are sadly mistaken.

I could give countless examples, but I will just say that some industries require unions to keep management in check. Specifically ones staffed by nearly all 'new immigrant' labour, where the typical employee doesnt realize that they have the rights that they do. They come from places that are so bad that they will happily eat a s#it sandwich if it means they have a job in Canada. Even if they realized they were being exploited, many dont have the ability to figure out where to get a lawyer or how to contact the labour board, let alone surviving financially while their appeal is heard.

That said, a case could be made that the existence of unions in these situations encourages the conflict with management, which amplifies the problem, and that if unions went away the problem eventually would to.

Anyway, off my soap box - The City (and Air Canada/Canada Post) are not staffed with people like this, so don't fall into the industries that I feel should be unionized. I don't blame them for trying to get the biggest paycheck possible though, I do the same when I am negotiating my salary. Like has been said many times in this thread already, greed drives people to want more. Thats how things work, no sense getting mad about it when it is someone other than you wanting more.