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

[rubecube]

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.

Just wanted to add to this. You do realize that there are instances where unions, especially in the public-sector, have requested this and had it balked at by management, right?

[Azure]

Again, what are they bargaining for that isn't already legislated by the government? Vacation time? Sick Days? Minimum wage? Overtime? These are all things that each provincial government already has legislation in place for.

Nobody is legislating away work rights.

As for the arbitrator, who sits on the WCB in each province? If you bother to look it up, you'd notice that there are people from all 3 sides. Government side, corporate side, and employee side. In a similar fashion a non-partisan arbitrator could have people from all sides play a part in the process, and from that a decision is made.

You know, similar to how the major sports league handle player arbitration.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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.

Shocking that people are not satisfied with their working conditions. I'd imagine that people hate sitting in the cubicle 8 hours per day. Tough luck. Hardly a job to die for, but certainly not a 'deplorable' working environment.

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.

You were the one that is arguing that the union is essential to providing good working conditions. If that is the case provide examples of non-unionized employees being 'forced' to work in crappy work conditions because there is nobody there to fight for them.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Just wanted to add to this. You do realize that there are instances where unions, especially in the public-sector, have requested this and had it balked at by management, right?

If by management you mean the company, then that is exactly WHY an arbitrator should be involved.

To be fair to BOTH sides, without any of the side crap going on. And we both know both sides play dirty.

[Tinordi]

jammies is dropping truth bombs

take cover

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

Shocking that people are not satisfied with their working conditions. I'd imagine that people hate sitting in the cubicle 8 hours per day. Tough luck. Hardly a job to die for, but certainly not a 'deplorable' working environment.

Unless you actually have the relevant qualifications, I'm not really going to lend much credence to your second-guessing of why someone may be dissatisfied with their working conditions? Workplace harassment, unpaid OT, unsolicited after-hours communication, etc., are still very real issues in the workplace. There have been studies that indicated a number of people who deal with these issues either don't know where to report them or won't for fear of reprecussions. These instances are multiplied during recessions.

You were the one that is arguing that the union is essential to providing good working conditions. If that is the case provide examples of non-unionized employees being 'forced' to work in crappy work conditions because there is nobody there to fight for them.

No, that's not what I was arguing at all. You're kind of combining two of my arguments into one, but I'll clarify both. I don't believe unions are a cure-all to poor working conditions, but the existence of unions, and the threat that any workplace can easily become a union shop likely at least marginally deters poorer working conditions. My main point however was that we've seen private industry stoop pretty low to turn a buck. I don't think it's a reach to suggest they would try to capitalize on a unionless environment.

[crazy_eoj]

I've got a question for the Union Supporters:

Why is there such a strong general perception among the population that public-sector Unions breed laziness, corruption, and generally never work in the best interests of society?

Did corporations create those perceptions or do you think it has to do with the experience many people have working within Union Environments?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

If by management you mean the company, then that is exactly WHY an arbitrator should be involved.

To be fair to BOTH sides, without any of the side crap going on. And we both know both sides play dirty.

I'd be totally fine with an independent arbitrator being involved from the get-go of any collective-bargaining arrangement, so long as there were no restrictions placed on the arbitrator by either side. Take a look at the last round of negotiations by the BC Liberals with various sectors of the public-service. The teachers, for instance, agreed to arbitration until the government attempted to stipulate what could and couldn't be arbitrated.

You're doing the CAPS thing again. Might want to uninstall the Springs1 formatter.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I've got a question for the Union Supporters:

Why is there such a strong general perception among the population that public-sector Unions breed laziness, corruption, and generally never work in the best interests of society?

Did corporations create those perceptions or do you think it has to do with the experience many people have working within Union Environments?

That perception isn't nearly as strong once you leave the prairies. Outside of that, I'd say there's likely a whole whack of confirmation bias going on.

[DuffMan]

Our management where I work hired a consultant to do an employee satisfaction survey every 2 yaers and they just finsihed up the 3rd one. To make a long story short, the union people rated everything really low. If you ask any of them what it is they want or could make things better, they don't have any answer. They already have a safe place to work and some very good wages, so , it's like complaining and being unsatisfied is part of their culture.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Our management where I work hired a consultant to do an employee satisfaction survey every 2 yaers and they just finsihed up the 3rd one. To make a long story short, the union people rated everything really low. If you ask any of them what it is they want or could make things better, they don't have any answer. They already have a safe place to work and some very good wages, so , it's like complaining and being unsatisfied is part of their culture.

Aren't satisfaction surveys anonymous? They have been everywhere I've worked.

[transplant99]

As Franklin Delano Roosevelt so succinctly put it oh so many years ago and when unions served so much more purpose than they do now...

"Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself," FDR said in 1937. "The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service."

And noted Time columnist Joe Klein then put it this way...

There's a critical difference between private sector unions and public employee unions, noted liberal Time magazine columnist Joe Klein: "Industrial unions are organized against the might and greed of ownership. Public employees unions are organized against the might and greed ... of the public?"

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Aren't satisfaction surveys anonymous? They have been everywhere I've worked.

Yes, but everything is grouped by dept. or function,

[transplant99]

Oh and one other thing.

You want to know why Conrad Black among thousands and thousands of other believe that public sector unions are a massively bad deal for Canada?

read this book if you get a chance....its fataing crazy.

http://www.amazon.ca/Pension-Ponzi-B.../dp/1118098730

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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

I agree with most of what you said, other than this. A teacher (or postal worker etc) can work to rule and, IMHO, have it be fairly effective.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That perception isn't nearly as strong once you leave the prairies. Outside of that, I'd say there's likely a whole whack of confirmation bias going on.

I don't agree. Public Response (a Left Leaning Ottawa based marketing firm) found that only 46% of people felt the gains made by Unions "benefit society generally", while 42% disagreed and 21% strongly disagreed.

Added to this the fact that over 2/3 of the public sphere is employed by unions while only 15% of the private sector is, it's easy to see why most people feel Public Sector Unions really only exist to hold the public hostage to their never ending demands.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Oh and one other thing.

You want to know why Conrad Black among thousands and thousands of other believe that public sector unions are a massively bad deal for Canada?

read this book if you get a chance....its fataing crazy.

http://www.amazon.ca/Pension-Ponzi-B.../dp/1118098730

I always get a kick out of people using statements like this to back up their position.

In a country of ~34 million people, I could probably find 1 million people that are certified idiots without much effort. Having thousands and thousands of people agree with something really doesn't lend and credence to it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Azure

Again, what are they bargaining for that isn't already legislated by the government? Vacation time? Sick Days? Minimum wage? Overtime? These are all things that each provincial government already has legislation in place for.

Um, wages? Its sort of a big one (i.e., the reason pretty much all of us enter into an employment contract.) Of course, pension, vacation, overtime (above legislated minimums) are other potential concessions that employees might reasonably seek from an employer.

Originally Posted by Azure

Nobody is legislating away work rights.

Collective bargaining is nearly universally regarded as a fundamental expression of the right to freedom of association (at least in western liberal democracies.)

Originally Posted by Azure

As for the arbitrator, who sits on the WCB in each province? If you bother to look it up, you'd notice that there are people from all 3 sides. Government side, corporate side, and employee side. In a similar fashion a non-partisan arbitrator could have people from all sides play a part in the process, and from that a decision is made.

It may shock you to learn that I am familiar (though by no means an expert) with a wide range of employment law areas, including collective bargaining and workers compensation boards. Workers compensation boards are administrative tribunals. They do not negotiate anything. They serve a totally different function than collective bargaining.

You also avoided the more pertinent questions that I posed; namely, (1) why shouldn't employees be permitted to use any tactic, including collective bargaining, that they think will maximize their bargaining power?; and (2) why should the government interfere in the free market by removing or restricting collective bargaining and thereby artificially weakening the bargaining power of employees?

Originally Posted by Azure

You know, similar to how the major sports league handle player arbitration.

Um, where do you think those player arbitration regimes came from? Oh yeah, collective bargaining.

If public employees and employers happen to agree on some sort of arbitration model, great. However, I have no idea why either of them should be forced into a bargaining regime if they do not want to.

[crazy_eoj]

"To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous."

New York Supreme Court, 1943

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Joe Klein

Industrial unions are organized against the might and greed of ownership. Public employees unions are organized against the might and greed ... of the public?

In fact, yes, Joe, exactly that. I'm not sure why he believes that the public, with its millions and millions of voices constantly clamoring for more services and lower taxes, is any less mighty or greedy than industrial owners?