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

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If they do it outside the framework of their CBA. Not really sure what your point is.

You had a mouthful of free market in your previous response to Azure, a subject you seem to struggle with.

Union perks backed by law pushed thru by unions/lobbyist groups <> free market.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Yakbutter

This thread is pointless. Don't you all know we are supposed to bend to the will of our corporate masters?

Who needs safety regulations, livable wages, time off, benefits or some level of job security? Work hard and you will become rich.

long live cushy public sector unionized desk jobs!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

This thread is pointless of course if you don't believe any of those things exist in a non-unionized workplace.

What do you think should happen to unions?

Take the teacher's union, for example. You believe it has outlived its usefulness. So now what?

[Yakbutter]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

long live cushy public sector unionized desk jobs!

Of course, they are the golden ticket !

I work for a public sector union and my occupation is among the highest in the province for WCB claims. Constant exposure to assaults, diseases and stress.

Lots of generalization from both sides, I think there can be a happy medium where employers can get what they want and workers can be looked after.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

You had a mouthful of free market in your previous response to Azure, a subject you seem to struggle with.

Union perks backed by law pushed thru by unions/lobbyist groups <> free market.

Maybe if you cared to elaborate your points instead of cruising in with your nonsensical drive-bys, I could actually respond to this. Really not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that workers were better off prior to unions, or would be in the future? I'm not sure where I ever stated that Canada or the U.S. were purely free-markets in the sense that there aren't labour laws and unions.

Also, do you seriously believe unions have more lobby power than private industry?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

This thread is pointless of course if you don't believe any of those things exist in a non-unionized workplace.

And you honestly don't see the influence of unions on the existence of safety laws, wage laws, etc. in non-unionized workplaces? Employees are resources. Unions created environments where there more attractive and lucrative positions for these resources. Non-unionized companies had to respond by creating better workplaces as a means of retaining their employees.

Hypothetically speaking, what do you think would happen if unions disappeared? Would everything go on just smoothly, with the economy rapidly gaining steam and everyone involved becoming much wealthier? Or do you the private-sector might try to remove some of the legislation that can be attributed to unions (i.e. minimum wage, standard work hours, holidays, etc.)?

[Minnie]

Could we swing this in a slightly different direction, in the context of the most recent strike, with the prison guards? Admittedly, I missed a lot of what that was about because we were dealing with health issues (the kid) and not near the TV/news overly much.

I'm right on the fence where unions are concerned, because again, admittedly, I don't know much about them, so I'm looking to get some education from you all. So far, rubecube seems to have me nodding my head in agreement, lol.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think the market should be allowed to dictate salary.

If there is no class mobility it has more to do with the lack of resources to offer affordable post-secondary educations for someone to advance their careers.

Do you think if we simply raised the minimum wage to $25/hour that it would solve anything?

Good job of not actually answering the question. Deflection with a dose of hyperbole for good measure.

[NBC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Also, do you seriously believe unions have more lobby power than private industry?

There are definitely instances where this has been the case. I'm thinking mostly of 1970s Britain though.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by NBC

There are definitely instances where this has been the case. I'm thinking mostly of 1970s Britain though.

There was a time when the various Ontario manufacturing unions had a quite a bit of influence as well, but I don't think their influence was ever substantially greater than the industry titans.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What do you think should happen to unions?

Take the teacher's union, for example. You believe it has outlived its usefulness. So now what?

I believe that under the current 'get what I want at the expense of everyone' model that many unions follow has outlived its usefulness.

The right to strike for one should be outlawed. Canada Post is according to recent reports going to face a $1 billion dollar loss by 2020 if changes are not made, and yet their workers still strike. Are the workers going to take salary cuts when the company can't meet their financial obligations anymore? Hell no. The taxpayer will just continue to help them bleed money.

Collective bargaining should be thrown out as well, and non-partisan arbitrators should be appointed to deal with public-sector employees, and their wages, benefits and other concerns they have. I have no problem if they come up with a contract, and every 4-5 years renew it, but collective bargaining should not be allowed. Unions hold governments hostage, and on the flip side the governments awards unions with unilateral pay increases in exchange for votes.

Constant audits should be done to weed out employees who do not preform according to expectations, and employees that do should be rewarded.

It is nice when people join the public sector because they believe it is their duty to serve the public interest, but not all people are driven by that. There has to be some incentive to preform better, and consequences if you don't.

Public sector unions are accountable to the taxpayer, and considering how many provinces are dealing with budget shortfalls, something needs to be done about public spending provincially before it becomes a problem we can't deal with anymore.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

And you honestly don't see the influence of unions on the existence of safety laws, wage laws, etc. in non-unionized workplaces? Employees are resources. Unions created environments where there more attractive and lucrative positions for these resources. Non-unionized companies had to respond by creating better workplaces as a means of retaining their employees.

Hypothetically speaking, what do you think would happen if unions disappeared? Would everything go on just smoothly, with the economy rapidly gaining steam and everyone involved becoming much wealthier? Or do you the private-sector might try to remove some of the legislation that can be attributed to unions (i.e. minimum wage, standard work hours, holidays, etc.)?

I believe it is the responsibility of the government to ensure better workplaces.

As for unions disappearing, as I have already said, 80% of the population works in non-unionized jobs, and most seem to do just fine. If there are issues that need to be dealt with, and there are in every job, the government should appoint a non-partisan body to deal with them. Similar to WCB.

As for minimum wage disappearing, work hours going down, no holidays.....you honestly can't think that companies will want to take away those rights. Anyone with half a brain knows that a better work environment creates a better and more productive employee. There is a reason why companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook and others spend so much money on employee satisfaction.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

I believe that under the current 'get what I want at the expense of everyone' model that many unions follow has outlived its usefulness.

So just to be clear, it's okay for companies to get what they want at the expense of everyone else, but unions are dicks for doing the same thing?

The right to strike for one should be outlawed.

So let's effectively remove any leverage an employee has when negotiating with their employer?

[qutoe]Canada Post is according to recent reports going to face a $1 billion dollar loss by 2020 if changes are not made, and yet their workers still strike. Are the workers going to take salary cuts when the company can't meet their financial obligations anymore? Hell no.[/quote]

No, when executives make poor decisions they keep their jobs/salary and the employees get laid off, or are you unfamiliar with large companies? The public sector works very similar in this sense.

Collective bargaining should be thrown out as well, and non-partisan arbitrators should be appointed to deal with public-sector employees, and their wages, benefits and other concerns they have. I have no problem if they come up with a contract, and every 4-5 years renew it, but collective bargaining should not be allowed. Unions hold governments hostage, and on the flip side the governments awards unions with unilateral pay increases in exchange for votes.

Again, you're effectively removing any leverage an employee has in negotiating his/her wages. What you're advocating for is an extremely uneven playing field. And what unions are holding governments hostage? Our last collective-agreement saw us gain exactly 2.5% raises over a 3-year period, which didn't even cover the previous years of inflation, let alone the upcoming ones.

Constant audits should be done to weed out employees who do not preform according to expectations, and employees that do should be rewarded.

So you'd be fine with public-sector employees receiving bonuses out of taxpayer dollars? The audits are already done, btw.

It is nice when people join the public sector because they believe it is their duty to serve the public interest, but not all people are driven by that. There has to be some incentive to preform better, and consequences if you don't.

And you think poorer job security, benefits, and stagnant wages are going drive people to the public service?

Public sector unions are accountable to the taxpayer, and considering how many provinces are dealing with budget shortfalls, something needs to be done about public spending provincially before it becomes a problem we can't deal with anymore.

Again, the highest wage-earners in the public sector are non-bargaining unit employees. It sounds like you're doing a lot of talking out of your ass and very little factual analysis.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

I believe it is the responsibility of the government to ensure better workplaces.

Except that government and policy are fluid and unreliable. Unions at least provide a modicum of stability.

As for unions disappearing, as I have already said, 80% of the population works in non-unionized jobs, and most seem to do just fine.

I'd say this is pretty debatable.

If there are issues that need to be dealt with, and there are in every job, the government should appoint a non-partisan body to deal with them. Similar to WCB.

As for minimum wage disappearing, work hours going down, no holidays.....you honestly can't think that companies will want to take away those rights. Anyone with half a brain knows that a better work environment creates a better and more productive employee. There is a reason why companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook and others spend so much money on employee satisfaction.

Which is why so many companies outsource their jobs to third-world countries, right? Exploitation really boosts employee morale.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Azure

I believe that under the current 'get what I want at the expense of everyone' model that many unions follow has outlived its usefulness.

The right to strike for one should be outlawed. Canada Post is according to recent reports going to face a $1 billion dollar loss by 2020 if changes are not made, and yet their workers still strike. Are the workers going to take salary cuts when the company can't meet their financial obligations anymore? Hell no. The taxpayer will just continue to help them bleed money.

Collective bargaining should be thrown out as well, and non-partisan arbitrators should be appointed to deal with public-sector employees, and their wages, benefits and other concerns they have. I have no problem if they come up with a contract, and every 4-5 years renew it, but collective bargaining should not be allowed. Unions hold governments hostage, and on the flip side the governments awards unions with unilateral pay increases in exchange for votes.

I'm constantly amazed how froth-mouthingly enthusiastic some people, often self-described anti-nanny-state, pro-"freedom" conservatives, are about the government legislating away their own, and their fellow citizens', basic rights.

Thank goodness for the Charter and the judiciary.

[Azure]

Oh, and the union would stop the outsourcing? If anything it would increase the outsourcing, as instead of dealing with unions, companies will for for the cheaper 3rd world made option.

And how is it debatable that 80% of people in Canada work in non-union environments and get by just fine? They do. And the government has setup ways to deal with issues that might come up. If that isn't enough, perhaps we should do more.

I'm also still waiting for examples of companies in Canada using those deplorable practices that you constantly keep using as examples of what the union is there to stop.

If the union is so important to stopping that, you should have no problem finding situations like that in non-unionized workplaces.

[Makarov]

As rubecube just asked, we're still waiting for someone to explain why corporations/governments/employers should be permitted to flex their bargaining power muscle as much as possible, but employees should not be? It doesn't make any sense to me.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Makarov

As rubecube just asked, we're still waiting for someone to explain why corporations/governments/employers should be permitted to flex their bargaining power muscle as much as possible, but employees should not be? It doesn't make any sense to me.

As if they don't already. Who forces Encana to pay employees what they do?

As for governments, I already said a non-partisan arbitrator should be involved, as salaries are obviously not determined by market value. Perhaps you should actually bother to read my posts.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Azure

As if they don't already. Who forces Encana to pay employees what they do?

But why shouldn't Encana employees be permitted to use any tactic, including collective bargaining, that they think will maximize their bargaining power? That is the question that I am asking.

Incidentally, respecting the right to collective bargaining is the true "free market" solution to setting wage rates, etc. Legislating away worker rights is the government interventionist solution.

Originally Posted by Azure

As for governments, I already said a non-partisan arbitrator should be involved, as salaries are obviously not determined by market value. Perhaps you should actually bother to read my posts.

And who appoints this arbitrator? And who determines the basis on which salaries, benefits, and workplace conditions will be determined? Surely you aren't suggesting that it should be the employer (i.e., the government)? Does that strike you as fair?

And, more importantly, are you suggesting that saving 10% on government labour costs justifies infringing on the rights of tens of thousands of people? If so, I remain thoroughly unconvinced.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh, and the union would stop the outsourcing? If anything it would increase the outsourcing, as instead of dealing with unions, companies will for for the cheaper 3rd world made option.

Actually there are number of strategic ways unions can at least prevent outsourcing to some degree, especially if they can get it worded correctly in a CBA. I agree with you though that there needs to be more done on the legislative side. The problem is then you have the free-market crowd crying interference.

And how is it debatable that 80% of people in Canada work in non-union environments and get by just fine? They do. And the government has setup ways to deal with issues that might come up. If that isn't enough, perhaps we should do more.

You think 80% of Canadians are satisfied with their wages and working conditions? There are numerous stats that suggest otherwise. And, no, "the government" has not set up a way to deal with these issues, as labour is a provincial matter except in the cases of federal agencies. Some provinces have semi-effective tribunals that deal with this, and some don't.

I'm also still waiting for examples of companies in Canada using those deplorable practices that you constantly keep using as examples of what the union is there to stop.

And I'm waiting for you to gain some comprehension skills, and understand that's not the point I'm making. Either you're not understand what I'm getting at or you're being willfully obtuse and strawmanning the debate.