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

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

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.

You didn't provide any evidence, or statistics that actually refuted anything.

I think you are misunderstanding my experience with my former employer. My experience was fine, as a white male working in an predominantly recent immigrant staffed organization, I had very little issues. I worked as both union and management, so had extensive experience in both sides.

Those people without an understanding of what their rights were, in the other hand, would have been far worse off. Many were on temp work permits, so them living in the country was 100%dependant upon them keeping their job.

My main question was about wages and benefits. When I last worked there, about 3.5 years ago, they most certainly were not above any other nonunion plants in the Calgary area. The claim was that it was universally better, so I asked for some proof and nothing has been given, despite your assertion.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Jeez that guy is bitter and old.

I am no fan of unions, but its not like they can be outlawed or anything. Or should be.

My beef is that they are all to some extent publicly funded, you can't choose if you want to be in them or not, and they don't have to tell anyone what they do with the money.

If every teacher or grocery worker wants to be in a union, is willing to spend their money on it, and has the info and ability to stop being in the union if they aren't happy, who am I to argue.

[Yakbutter]

What exactly are these public sector unionized jobs that are so amazing to have?

Teachers, law enforcement, tax workers, nurses?

I don't see anyone beating down the door trying to get into these professions. People make it sound like people who work in the public sector are the scourge of the earth and that they are people that could not cut it in the private sector.

Unions are an important check & balance in a capitalist society. If business is allowed to lobby the government for their own self interest then employees should be allowed to look out for their interests through unions.

Nobody is getting rich in a public sector job..

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

As anyone who follows along corporate profits are at all time highs while the richer get richer and the ordinary guy gets paid less and less. Now if things were going the other way you may have an argument that unions are too powerful.../

I anxiously await the rebuttal to this argument, which has been completely ignored, undoubtedly because it is pretty well unanswerable.

Any society can sustain an elite. Even utter failures like North Korea and the various African robber states have their privileged classes, and what is most remarkable about liberal democracy was the creation and sustenance of a powerful, broadly-based middle class that owes a considerable debt to the influence of unions. The elite's accretion of wealth in the last 25-30 years is nought but a reversion towards a traditional hierarchy of serfs and masters.

Instead of focusing on why some employees (CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, and other upper management) are vastly overpaid (far in excess of inflation) for their contribution while others (everyone else) cannot keep up, the narrative is all about how market forces would ensure fairness if it only wasn't for the unions. Yah, sure - if the "market" wasn't manipulated by those who wield the economic power, that might actually happen. But it doesn't, and it never will.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

I anxiously await the rebuttal to this argument, which has been completely ignored, undoubtedly because it is pretty well unanswerable.

Any society can sustain an elite. Even utter failures like North Korea and the various African robber states have their privileged classes, and what is most remarkable about liberal democracy was the creation and sustenance of a powerful, broadly-based middle class that owes a considerable debt to the influence of unions. The elite's accretion of wealth in the last 25-30 years is nought but a reversion towards a traditional hierarchy of serfs and masters.

Instead of focusing on why some employees (CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, and other upper management) are vastly overpaid (far in excess of inflation) for their contribution while others (everyone else) cannot keep up, the narrative is all about how market forces would ensure fairness if it only wasn't for the unions. Yah, sure - if the "market" wasn't manipulated by those who wield the economic power, that might actually happen. But it doesn't, and it never will.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...me-inequality/

Some dispute that this is actually the case.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

That is the logic that any employee would accept.

Wouldn't the very existence of unions suggest otherwise?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by jammies

I anxiously await the rebuttal to this argument, which has been completely ignored, undoubtedly because it is pretty well unanswerable.

Any society can sustain an elite. Even utter failures like North Korea and the various African robber states have their privileged classes, and what is most remarkable about liberal democracy was the creation and sustenance of a powerful, broadly-based middle class that owes a considerable debt to the influence of unions. The elite's accretion of wealth in the last 25-30 years is nought but a reversion towards a traditional hierarchy of serfs and masters.

Instead of focusing on why some employees (CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, and other upper management) are vastly overpaid (far in excess of inflation) for their contribution while others (everyone else) cannot keep up, the narrative is all about how market forces would ensure fairness if it only wasn't for the unions. Yah, sure - if the "market" wasn't manipulated by those who wield the economic power, that might actually happen. But it doesn't, and it never will.

Agreed. The biggest con pulled in the free-market system was convincing the middle-class that they're overpaid and under-worked.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

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.

Are you speaking from experience or conjecture? The unions I've been a part of have offered scholarships and paid for training out of our dues.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...me-inequality/

Some dispute that this is actually the case.

Some would be right in Canada, not so much in the US. http://www.nber.org/digest/dec08/w13982.html

To what would this difference be attributable? Well, it certainly isn't because Canada is more willing to embrace free market ideology than the USA. Nor is it because unions are holding back the American worker more than the Canadian equivalent.

[DuffMan]

Our company has some union positions. It's funny how these guys are the least educated but have the nicest houses, trucks, motorcycles, skidoos, cabins etc. and can expect to get raises for a position that holds no accountability or responsibilty.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Our company has some union positions. It's funny how these guys are the least educated but have the nicest houses, trucks, motorcycles, skidoos, cabins etc. and can expect to get raises for a position that holds no accountability or responsibilty.

Well if it happens in your company, it must be the case for every company/union.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Our company has some union positions. It's funny how these guys are the least educated but have the nicest houses, trucks, motorcycles, skidoos, cabins etc. and can expect to get raises for a position that holds no accountability or responsibilty.

Maybe you should form a union.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

The problem with this is that higher wages cause inflation - if your truck driver should be earning a hypothetical $34 an hour ($70k a year on a 40 hour work week), I should be well into 6 figures in IT, never mind the people even more qualified and specialized than me.

At that point, $10-15 for a bag of apples is probably the norm, and we'd need another round of raises.

So because you can take a 6 month course at sait you should earn about 2x of a truck driver? Just checking around it can take upwards of $8000.00 from scratch to get a full class 1 truck licence these days in hopes of earning $22.00 but it's ok with you because your apples are still cheap. Please! Just about every other wage has doubled in 25 years including minimum wage.

I'll give you an idea whats going on in the transportation industry, one just has to look at the fortune 500 companies and forbes to see how many of the uber rich are owners in transportation,why? because they kicked out the unions and hired basically slave labor from other countries to drive their trucks and run their docks.

I have a buddy that own 2 gravel trucks and made a tidy living 20 years ago without a union but "ahem" the "new canadians" came in the industry with government business grants to buy trucks and undercut him to the point it wasn't worth it and folded up shop. He now is a manager for a large trucking company, what he told me should make everyone afraid, "drivers these days are a dime a dozen but only 1 in 5 should be operating a big truck"

So the next time your thinking of your cheap apples make sure you keep a good eye on the big truck next to you.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Azure

If a company won't pay a Canadian IT guy what the market value is they get Harper to approve the use of foreign workers..

This type of thing impacts salaries for non-union workers as well.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Our company has some union positions. It's funny how these guys are the least educated but have the nicest houses, trucks, motorcycles, skidoos, cabins etc. and can expect to get raises for a position that holds no accountability or responsibilty.

I work in a public sector union job, and I can say this is partially accurate. A union seems to be all about job security, but if you're a good enough employee you shouldn't need to worry about losing your job. I've been in my position for a decade, I like to think I work hard, and deserve my yearly raise, increased vacation, etc. as per our contract states. However we have some people who call in sick AT LEAST two times per month, and almost guaranteed if they know its going to be a busy shift. But if management tries to call them on this B.S. such as this, the response is always "I'm calling my union!!". I hate that I have to pay the same union dues to "protect" these people, when I will likely never need to call the union for my protection. Still, I wouldn't give up my job security for the world.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

I work in a public sector union job, and I can say this is partially accurate. A union seems to be all about job security, but if you're a good enough employee you shouldn't need to worry about losing your job. I've been in my position for a decade, I like to think I work hard, and deserve my yearly raise, increased vacation, etc. as per our contract states. However we have some people who call in sick AT LEAST two times per month, and almost guaranteed if they know its going to be a busy shift. But if management tries to call them on this B.S. such as this, the response is always "I'm calling my union!!". I hate that I have to pay the same union dues to "protect" these people, when I will likely never need to call the union for my protection. Still, I wouldn't give up my job security for the world.

Another beauty union perk. The production side of our business runs 24/7. So lets say you want to take Friday off to go to your big cabin to take your family water skiing. Just clear it with your buddy that he is available to come in and fill in for you. Oh yeah, he'll earn double time, and he'll also need some time off in the near future for the same so, he can expect the same from you. Of course, double time on an already seriously overpaid position, doesn't hurt.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Another beauty union perk. The production side of our business runs 24/7. So lets say you want to take Friday off to go to your big cabin to take your family water skiing. Just clear it with your buddy that he is available to come in and fill in for you. Oh yeah, he'll earn double time, and he'll also need some time off in the near future for the same so, he can expect the same from you. Of course, double time on an already seriously overpaid position, doesn't hurt.

How is this a product of collective bargaining? This is a product of dishonest individual employees. Those exist in every workplace.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

My beef is that they are all to some extent publicly funded,

How so?

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

you can't choose if you want to be in them or not, and they don't have to tell anyone what they do with the money.

Well, strictly speaking, one can choose to be a union member or not by choosing to work in a unionized or non-unionized workplace (ironically, this is an argument often used by people criticizing unions: "if employees are dissatisfied with the employment terms offered by one employer, they can leave for another employer.") Intuitively, I agree that it seems somewhat undemocratic that employees cannot "opt out" of the union at their workplace. However, the entire raison d'etre of a union depends on the negotiating power derived from collective bargaining and so permitting individual employees to opt out of that collective bargaining would effectively make unionization untenable. I liken it to the idea advocated by some anarchists/wacky conspiracy theorists that residents should be able to "opt out" of the society in which they live. Again, in a very superficial, pseudo-liberal way, this idea has some appeal. However, the entire raison d'etre of a society depends on the advantages of people all living together with understood rules and expectations. Therefore, "opting out" by individuals is an untenable, contradictory idea.

Incidentally, you are completely incorrect about the financial reporting requirements of unions in Canada. They have strict reporting obligations set out in the Canada Labour Code.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

I work in a public sector union job, and I can say this is partially accurate. A union seems to be all about job security, but if you're a good enough employee you shouldn't need to worry about losing your job. I've been in my position for a decade

This would be why you're so out to lunch on the first part of your post. I would argue that public sector jobs are much more violatile than private-sector jobs. Every year there is a new budget, with new cuts to the public-sector. For guys like you that have a bit of tenure, it's not such an issue as they generally cull from the 20-30 demographic.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

As anyone who follows along corporate profits are at all time highs while the richer get richer and the ordinary guy gets paid less and less. Now if things were going the other way you may have an argument that unions are too powerful but as it is, unless you're a millionaire you've been brainwashed.

I recently read of article that claimed that if you look at what people were making in 1960 and then consider cost of living, energy costs, monetary value and worker productivity; minimum wage should be $22/hour. Considering it's about half of that now, I don't think the workers are winning. It was an American study, but I imagine it wouldn't be too different here.

People that would have been millionaires 50 years ago are making billions, while people that are working jobs that would have guaranteed them home ownership in the 1960s-1980s and retirement savings, are just not getting there.