Conrad Black: Public-sector unions are a blight on our society

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

The members of 1118 are better paid than the industry average.

But in terms of attitude? I imagine that the union leadership under Jack really helped set the tone for them, he was a really good guy to deal with. Sad day when he retired. I think it goes to show how great leadership can really work for a union.

Sadly, it seems to be few and far between.

Curious how you arrived at them being better than the industry average? What do you think the average is?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

It is in the best interest of the trucking companies who do billions upon billions worth of work each year to pay affordable and fair salaries to retain and hire new employees.

The market already determines the wages for millions of other workers in a non-unionized workplace, and it would do the same for all current unionized employees.

That being said, if the original point of the union was to ensure fair wages and a safe workplace, then the government has to do their due diligence to make sure companies follow proper safety protocols.

As for teachers unions, I agree they need to be disbanded.

Who should do the disbanding of teacher's unions?

As for Lord Conrad, it's kind of funny how he gripes about the "cronyism, and excessive compensation for the controlling families and cliques." inherent in unions.

Before he went to the klink, he wasn't exactly a rags to riches story.

He does make an interesting point about "ununionized" schools doing better than those that are unionized. Who would have thunk that private schools, like Upper Canada College, turn out more accomplished students than your average public school? If only everyone would send their children to private school, we'd all be better off.

The shot at the auto unions is also a good one. Those union people on the assembly lines in Detroit made the terrible, short-sighted decision to design and market all those crappy crappy cars that nobody wanted to buy, and then funneled their outrageous wages to Japan.

A Pinto in every driveway!

[CaramonLS]

Specifically speaking for Meat Cutters and Clerks, they are paid more than the average retail grocery employee working in the same capacity in the area. Comparing them to their non-union counterparts, it isn't a contest.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

See how many public sector employees are in the top 15 % wage earners in this country.

Here's an excerpt from a recent macleans,



Getting a public sector job is indeed like winning the lottery.

You do realize that the highest wage-earners in the public sector tend to be non-bargaining unit employees, right?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Specifically speaking for Meat Cutters and Clerks, they are paid more than the average retail grocery employee working in the same capacity in the area. Comparing them to their non-union counterparts, it isn't a contest.

Which would prove that there is a need for unions to ensure better wages, yes?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

If people don't like the true value of their job they should retrain and find a new one. Simple as that. I'm glad that column was written and hope there's more of it.

The hilarious double-standard of free-market capitalists rears its head again. Maybe if you as a business owner don't want to pay the wages your industry is commanding, find a new industry.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The hilarious double-standard of free-market capitalists rears its head again. Maybe if you as a business owner don't want to pay the wages your industry is commanding, find a new industry.

How? It is basically a law that firms can only pay their employees what they want to pay them in accordance with available revenues. Employees do not dictate salaries. I don't understand how you don't get this.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

How? It is basically a law that firms can only pay their employees what they want to pay them in accordance with available revenues. Employees do not dictate salaries. I don't understand how you don't get this.

I don't think I was suggesting paying employees beyond what the revenue can provide. There are more than a few unions who have stupidly priced themselves and their industry into the toilet, I won't argue that. I was commenting more on the "accept what I want to pay your or GTFO" sentiment. It's individual self-interest condemning collective self-interest.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't think I was suggesting paying employees beyond what the revenue can provide. There are more than a few unions who have stupidly priced themselves and their industry into the toilet, I won't argue that. I was commenting more on the "accept what I want to pay your or GTFO" sentiment. It's individual self-interest condemning collective self-interest.

If a company won't pay an IT guy what the market value is they won't have any IT guys working for them.

All of that happens without any union involvement.

There are literally millions upon millions of people who work for companies in North America that are not unionized. Are these people subject to harsh working environments, extremely low wages, and brutal torture from their horrible bosses?

Does the Alberta teacher union work to serve the interests of both sides? The students and the taxpayer? Do they demand wages that are in line with what teachers make in other parts of the country? Or will they go on strike regardless of the circumstances, including in the middle of a bloody school year because they think they should get MORE money, even if it comes at the cost of an important year in a students life?

I don't have a problem with unions that work with the other side to get the best possible result. Do all of them do that? Do public-sector unions work to benefit both sides if their wages shoot up 120%? Or are they just padding their own pockets?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Azure

If a company won't pay an IT guy what the market value is they won't have any IT guys working for them.

All of that happens without any union involvement.

There are literally millions upon millions of people who work for companies in North America that are not unionized. Are these people subject to harsh working environments, extremely low wages, and brutal torture from their horrible bosses?

Does the Alberta teacher union work to serve the interests of both sides? The students and the taxpayer? Do they demand wages that are in line with what teachers make in other parts of the country? Or will they go on strike regardless of the circumstances, including in the middle of a bloody school year because they think they should get MORE money, even if it comes at the cost of an important year in a students life?

I don't have a problem with unions that work with the other side to get the best possible result. Do all of them do that? Do public-sector unions work to benefit both sides if their wages shoot up 120%? Or are they just padding their own pockets?

Of course not all of them, but having worked in a union where all those things were borderline happening, I would shudder to think what it would have been like if it wasnt unionized.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

If a company won't pay an IT guy what the market value is they won't have any IT guys working for them.

All of that happens without any union involvement.

There are literally millions upon millions of people who work for companies in North America that are not unionized. Are these people subject to harsh working environments, extremely low wages, and brutal torture from their horrible bosses?

And you don't realize that this is largely due to the existence of unions over the last 100 years? Have you ever actually done any significant reading or research on the Canadian labour movement?

Does the Alberta teacher union work to serve the interests of both sides? The students and the taxpayer? Do they demand wages that are in line with what teachers make in other parts of the country? Or will they go on strike regardless of the circumstances, including in the middle of a bloody school year because they think they should get MORE money, even if it comes at the cost of an important year in a students life?

That's really not their prerogative. The union's priority is to obtain the best possible working conditions for its members. I'm curious as to why you believe the union should have different priorities than management.

I don't have a problem with unions that work with the other side to get the best possible result. Do all of them do that? Do public-sector unions work to benefit both sides if their wages shoot up 120%? Or are they just padding their own pockets?

Again, it is not the union's mandate to observe the public's best-interests over those of their own members. However, public interest actually does generally weigh more in public-sector bargaining than private-sector, because the members are also contributing directly to their own wages.

[Caged Great]

heaven help us that people actually can earn a living wage out there.

Better for everyone to be poor as all hell.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

heaven help us that people actually can earn a living wage out there.

Better for everyone to be poor as all hell.

This was another point I wanted to make. Making more than the industry average doesn't necessarily equal overpaid.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't think I was suggesting paying employees beyond what the revenue can provide. There are more than a few unions who have stupidly priced themselves and their industry into the toilet, I won't argue that. I was commenting more on the "accept what I want to pay your or GTFO" sentiment. It's individual self-interest condemning collective self-interest.

That is the logic that any employee would accept. Unions all price themselves into the toilet by increasing wages above their market value.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Of course not all of them, but having worked in a union where all those things were borderline happening, I would shudder to think what it would have been like if it wasnt unionized.

Heaven forbid you might actually have to change jobs. Unions, in this day, insulate their members from increasing their skills, looking elsewhere for work, or generally becoming competitive.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think private sector unions have a role to play. And as has been seen in the past if a private sector union asks for too much companies can go bankrupt so both the unions and the companies have some incentive to be reasonable.

The problem in the public sector is that the bill is just passed onto the taxpayer.

That can also be the problem in the private sector... see: auto bailouts.

Public sector unions are unique though in their ability to vote for the person they negotiate against. I suppose that might actually be a solid reason to keep the government out of the CBC/Canada Post/Via negotiations.

[Devils'Advocate]

What public sector unions have had their wages shoot up 120%. I got a spit in the face of 1.5%. Inflation was 2.46% last year and 2.62% the year before that. It would seem to me that despite having a union, public sector employees are having a decrease in their standard of living.

As for striking in the middle of the school year, striking in June would be pointless. The only leverage workers have is withholding their services, either as a union strike or by quitting and moving elsewhere. If you are advocating the our public sector nurses, teachers, firemen, police officers, etc should all start quitting on mass, I'm gonna have suggest that might be a bad thing.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Which would prove that there is a need for unions to ensure better wages, yes?

I really don't understand how this was a response to my post. I was simply refuting Rathji's claim that he was underpaid relative to his peers in the Industry. Considering his subsequent posts highlighting some resentment against his former employer, it appears he verified F07's quote spot on.

Anyways, unions are the rough equivalent to handing out a life sentence to a thief. The punishment does simply not fit the crime.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by peter12

That is the logic that any employee would accept. Unions all price themselves into the toilet by increasing wages above their market value.

Now this is interesting. Should all workers be paid market value? Teacher with 15 years experience, on average, in Canada, will make $55,000 vs $45,000 in the United States. The market suggests that teachers should make much less than they make here. But I think the responsibility that they have dictates that they are worth more than market value, and that by having that higher salary it would attract a higher quality of students to the job.

What if you are working for a company that is making billions in profit. Shouldn't the workers there, that are doing the actual work of the company, be entitled to some of that money? If they are doing so much better than the competition because of the efforts of the people working there, do they not deserve a higher wage?

If a union is demanding a higher wage from a company that is near bankruptcy, then that is foolhardy. But what we are seeing in general is that companies are making HUGE profits, stocks are WAY up and yet the middle class is shrinking as those profits go to the very few at the top of the companies while salaries for workers is dropping.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

What if you are working for a company that is making billions in profit. Shouldn't the workers there, that are doing the actual work of the company, be entitled to some of that money? If they are doing so much better than the competition because of the efforts of the people working there, do they not deserve a higher wage?

Pfft. No. Unless that employee buys shares in the company, the amount of profit it makes is none of his or her concern. Do you think the employee is also willing to take a pay cut when the company posts a loss?