Canada Post likely will be locked out/on strike - July 2

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

You hate to see good paying jobs leaving the economy, but to me the post office is becoming a dinosaur. Although I will concede that the post office may be very important for smaller and isolated communities

Mail delivery hasn't been the driving force behind Canada post's business for almost a decade, the decline in regular mail delivery hardly factors into this dispute.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

People will still need parcels delivered, are they the only game in town? No, but it is always best to have competition in an industry. Think about how much a parcel shipment would cost if there was only one company doing it? There's a reason why in Canada we pay much more for domestic flights than most countries, 2 companies hold a monopoly and use it to gouge consumers. And they typically do not share those extra costs with their employees. People blame this poor economy on things like oil, which is a big factor, but they rarely see how big corporations are continuously reducing the amount of money going to the middle class, who are the true driving force to an economy.

This isn't about the union wanting a strike, unions don't want strikes, they are a last resort, this about a big company wanting to make bigger profits at the expense of their employees who at that the end of the day make their money. I wonder if they ever stop to think about the impact of reducing their employee's earnings and how it actually bites them in the ass when they can't afford to even use their service.

Here's a good example of how short sighted some views are on the impact of reducing costs in the name of making bigger profits.

If you've been in a macdonalds recently you've no doubt seen the new screens they use to take your order. Now those 4 screens in the restaurant eliminate 4 jobs in the store, sure that employee probably only made at best $30k a year, but here's where it creates it's impact, that employee can no longer go spend that $30k which has a ripple effect on every business that relies on that customers business. Most people will say, oh but it's not that much money, well if you consider that there are probably 100 macdonalds locations in the province, 4 $30k/year jobs lost at each locations, that would take around $12M out of our provincial economy. Meanwhile your Big Mac hadn't dropped in price, so those cost savings are just going in rotten ronny's pocket.

One company?

Right now i can think of UPS, DHL, FedEx, Canpar etc.

Beyond that if there is a need for someone to fill and can make a profit at it....it will happen.

as for the rest of your post...what you are arguing is that the government should be in the business of providing jobs.

I fundamentally and entirely disagree with that to no end. If I want employees working for me, i will make that happen. I dont need a big government corporation being the conduit for such a thing.

[White Out 403]

Race to the bottom continues. More decent paying jobs at risk, and so many here so quick to clamor and say "lock em out and have businesses bid on it". Great, now we can have people on minimum wage delivering and sorting out mail. What can go wrong?

I'd love to see some of your reactions if someone came in to your place of work and offered to do your job for minimum wage. But I guess everyone here is a Doctor or Lawyer right? Everyone here is completely irreplaceable?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

People will still need parcels delivered, are they the only game in town? No, but it is always best to have competition in an industry. Think about how much a parcel shipment would cost if there was only one company doing it? There's a reason why in Canada we pay much more for domestic flights than most countries, 2 companies hold a monopoly and use it to gouge consumers. And they typically do not share those extra costs with their employees. People blame this poor economy on things like oil, which is a big factor, but they rarely see how big corporations are continuously reducing the amount of money going to the middle class, who are the true driving force to an economy.

This isn't about the union wanting a strike, unions don't want strikes, they are a last resort, this about a big company wanting to make bigger profits at the expense of their employees who at that the end of the day make their money. I wonder if they ever stop to think about the impact of reducing their employee's earnings and how it actually bites them in the ass when they can't afford to even use their service.

Here's a good example of how short sighted some views are on the impact of reducing costs in the name of making bigger profits.

If you've been in a macdonalds recently you've no doubt seen the new screens they use to take your order. Now those 4 screens in the restaurant eliminate 4 jobs in the store, sure that employee probably only made at best $30k a year, but here's where it creates it's impact, that employee can no longer go spend that $30k which has a ripple effect on every business that relies on that customers business. Most people will say, oh but it's not that much money, well if you consider that there are probably 100 macdonalds locations in the province, 4 $30k/year jobs lost at each locations, that would take around $12M out of our provincial economy. Meanwhile your Big Mac hadn't dropped in price, so those cost savings are just going in rotten ronny's pocket.

You do realize that taking that example and applying it to the context of Canada Post you're just advocating that the Government give people money so they have disposable income to inject into the economy?

And that in further context of a Liberal Federal Government and an NDP Provincial one that their absolute expertise is spending other people's money? Its the one thing they are head and shoulders the best at. Why give money to other people to spend when the Government can spend it just fine all by themselves.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Race to the bottom continues. More decent paying jobs at risk, and so many here so quick to clamor and say "lock em out and have businesses bid on it". Great, now we can have people on minimum wage delivering and sorting out mail. What can go wrong?

I'd love to see some of your reactions if someone came in to your place of work and offered to do your job for minimum wage. But I guess everyone here is a Doctor or Lawyer right? Everyone here is completely irreplaceable?

You're totally off base here. They're decent paying jobs alright, but they're unnatural, the barriers for entry, exit and competition are artificial. They pay well because they are artificially insulated from the market by the Government.

What education, expertise or experience does one require to sort and carry mail?

See the McExample above, those jobs are being liquidated, sure, why? Because they arent protected by a Governing body. Why is that? Because you cant.

If all McDonald's employees unionized McDonalds could simply fire them all and replace them. Sure, it'd suck for a bit as they had to train all of these new people but at the end of the day the core essence of that job remains the same: "Literally anyone can do it."

The barriers for entry and exit are non-existent. The only difference with Canada Post is that they've created artificial barriers.

If you do something that anyone can do then you are by definition replaceable and especially so if the demand for what you do is on a declining trend.

[CaptainCrunch]

Realistically at this point, Canada Post has become a giant spam generating organization. I ask myself if receiving coupons or flyers in the mail makes me buy products? Its doubtful, usually I just leave them there and they get chucked out, Its a big waste of trees.

For the most part if you open the market for parcel delivery and its profitable more people will enter the business.

As well I receive all of my important correspondence, ie bills and other things, I get them electronically.

So we don't really need to support some giant make work project like Canada Post.

At the end of the day, they shouldn't be there to be a giant wasteful job generating project, they should be there to deliver a service in the most economical and efficient way possible.

Just like with McDonalds its nice to have this thought that they're there to generate jobs, but they're really not, they're there to generate profits, and if that means less employees and more efficient services by installing computer screens, then so be it. If the customer satisfaction falters then they'll dump the project and go back to the older model. I do know and I talked to a McDonald's manager the other day that it was taking longer to get my order out, and it was probably around staffing levels to deliver the food, I was satisfied that I could enter my own order, but they seemed to be short in terms of preparation of orders, so if they get enough of that feedback it might change the employee to computer ratio.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

One company?

Right now i can think of UPS, DHL, FedEx, Canpar etc.

Beyond that if there is a need for someone to fill and can make a profit at it....it will happen.

as for the rest of your post...what you are arguing is that the government should be in the business of providing jobs.

I fundamentally and entirely disagree with that to no end. If I want employees working for me, i will make that happen. I dont need a big government corporation being the conduit for such a thing.

There are numerous shipping companies, but I'm concerned with the growing rate that large corporations are consolidating industries at. Recent examples would be things like sobey's buying Safeway, Loblaws buying shoppers drug mart, even Canada post taking over purolator. What is happening is that consumers are losing their buying power which keeps our costs down, so good for the economy, as well as employees are losing their bargaining power, which is bad for the economy.

As far as new companies starting up, do you really think it is possible for someone to up and start a new grocery store and truly compete with the buying power of these large corporations? Or to start up a shipping service to compete with these already established mega corporations and their workforce and delivery vehicles fleet?

As far as governments providing people jobs, I don't believe it is up to them to create jobs, however they do have to regulate the economy. They see this trend and they are aware of it's impact, however most politicians rely on corporate sponsors to get elected so they allow these giants to get away with this kind of thing. Ask yourself this, with the current unemployment rate in this province is there really a need for companies to continue using temporary foreign workers? Yet the government allows companies to do it, so they can save on things like pension, vacation increases and any liability of retaining an employee. The government does this while ignoring it's impact on things like housing/rental prices, as well as the strain it puts on the healthcare system.

The reason I mentioned the effects of industry automation(macdonalds) is that because yes I do feel the government needs to address this at some point. I have no idea what industry you work in, however I can almost guarantee you that it will eventually feel the impact of these things at some point. Look at it this way, an economy such as ours works by people putting money into it, not by big corporations making record profits. We need people making money, and then spending that money at other businesses so that the cycle of growth can continue.

If 100 people spend money at a business and that business is making gains, it will grow, that growth will create jobs through that's business's expansion, which will make it so more people can spend money at other businesses and then those businesses will grow and create jobs, more people will make money there and they will continue to put more money into the first business which will continue the cycle of growth.

If 100 people lose their income, they will not spend their money on goods and services, which will affect the retail industry, they will not buy/build a new home which will affect the construction and real estate industries. The workers in those industries then start to lose jobs, and the cycle goes backwards. This also puts a strain on CPP and EI, which isn't good for anyone.

So unless these big corporations are going to start subsidizing all these industries that their greed impacts, then something must be done.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Race to the bottom continues. More decent paying jobs at risk, and so many here so quick to clamor and say "lock em out and have businesses bid on it". Great, now we can have people on minimum wage delivering and sorting out mail. What can go wrong?

I'd love to see some of your reactions if someone came in to your place of work and offered to do your job for minimum wage. But I guess everyone here is a Doctor or Lawyer right? Everyone here is completely irreplaceable?

Lawyers don't need to worry, when people don't have money to pay their fees their business should skyrocket should it not? (Green text)

This is the ripple affect people either don't understand or are just hoping that they die before it comes to fruition.

[Sylvanfan]

Canada post does still service some tough to get to outpost communities that the private guys wont bother with unless they can absolutely price gouge them.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

You do realize that taking that example and applying it to the context of Canada Post you're just advocating that the Government give people money so they have disposable income to inject into the economy?

And that in further context of a Liberal Federal Government and an NDP Provincial one that their absolute expertise is spending other people's money? Its the one thing they are head and shoulders the best at. Why give money to other people to spend when the Government can spend it just fine all by themselves.

My point is this, Canada post isn't struggling right now, since restructuring they are making more money than they have in a long time. Those profits should be shared (reasonably) with their employees, instead they are seeking concessions. When a company does well it is better to have their employees share the rewards, since first of all, without them that company doesn't succeed, and secondly it is good for the economy which in the long run is good for that company because it maintains their customers.

You are an accountant, I'm not sure if you run a private business or work for a larger firm, but imagine if you did work for a publicly traded firm, and saw their stock and profits increase every year, while always increasing their fees to clients, yet every year the came to you saying you weren't getting a raise, or they were reducing your pay. Would that seem like the best thing to do, even though it makes sense for them because their profits will go up?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

My point is this, Canada post isn't struggling right now, since restructuring they are making more money than they have in a long time. Those profits should be shared (reasonably) with their employees, instead they are seeking concessions. When a company does well it is better to have their employees share the rewards, since first of all, without them that company doesn't succeed, and secondly it is good for the economy which in the long run is good for that company because it maintains their customers.

You are an accountant, I'm not sure if you run a private business or work for a larger firm, but imagine if you did work for a publicly traded firm, and saw their stock and profits increase every year, while always increasing their fees to clients, yet every year the came to you saying you weren't getting a raise, or they were reducing your pay. Would that seem like the best thing to do, even though it makes sense for them because their profits will go up?

Profit sharing at a public corporation? The employees are already compensated better than private employees and they receive better benefits. As a public corporation, the mission at Canada Post should be to provide an optimal level of service at a minimal cost. If costs become out of control they need to overhaul the system.

Private employees understand that the performance and success of the company and their employer is tied to their efficiency. Public employees don't share that same level of connection. They just ride the public corporation until it becomes unsustainable and they cash out with a hefty package at the end.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

My point is this, Canada post isn't struggling right now, since restructuring they are making more money than they have in a long time. Those profits should be shared (reasonably) with their employees, instead they are seeking concessions. When a company does well it is better to have their employees share the rewards, since first of all, without them that company doesn't succeed, and secondly it is good for the economy which in the long run is good for that company because it maintains their customers.

You are an accountant, I'm not sure if you run a private business or work for a larger firm, but imagine if you did work for a publicly traded firm, and saw their stock and profits increase every year, while always increasing their fees to clients, yet every year the came to you saying you weren't getting a raise, or they were reducing your pay. Would that seem like the best thing to do, even though it makes sense for them because their profits will go up?

Im curious if you would agree that when Canada Post was bleeding money for years and years.....should the employees have shared the losses?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

You're totally off base here. They're decent paying jobs alright, but they're unnatural, the barriers for entry, exit and competition are artificial. They pay well because they are artificially insulated from the market by the Government.

What education, expertise or experience does one require to sort and carry mail?

See the McExample above, those jobs are being liquidated, sure, why? Because they arent protected by a Governing body. Why is that? Because you cant.

If all McDonald's employees unionized McDonalds could simply fire them all and replace them. Sure, it'd suck for a bit as they had to train all of these new people but at the end of the day the core essence of that job remains the same: "Literally anyone can do it."

The barriers for entry and exit are non-existent. The only difference with Canada Post is that they've created artificial barriers.

If you do something that anyone can do then you are by definition replaceable and especially so if the demand for what you do is on a declining trend.

They aren't insulated jobs, those workers make those amounts because they bargained for them and the company agreed to pay them that amount. Why did they agree to pay them that amount? Because based on their profits that those workers got them, they could afford to. It's such a ridiculous argument that because a job doesn't require a degree or education that it should therefore be low paying. Someone working at macdonalds probably work 5x harder then most people, and their employer likely makes more money off them in a day then some of the highest paying jobs out there. Why should they not be compensated fairly for that? Should the make the same as doctors? No, however they should earn enough to live off of, the same as construction labourers do, they don't have any degrees yet people accept that they make what they make because they accept that it is fair compensation for what is an important position to their employer. These companies need employees to make money, so they should fairly compensate them for their contribution.

Your comment on macdonalds firing all their employees if they unionized and simply retraining them, is not a valid argument since it would violate a number of labour laws. You can't simply fire your workers when they are unionized, otherwise all of these employers would have fired their "replaceable" employees years ago.

I also find that singling out certain employees as "replaceable" is a little bit ignorant, it doesn't matter what industry you are in, you are replaceable. Fact of the matter is, a lot of employees in jobs that require no education or credentials are less easily replaced since most people don't want to do those jobs.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Locke

...
If all McDonald's employees unionized McDonalds could simply fire them all and replace them. Sure, it'd suck for a bit as they had to train all of these new people but at the end of the day the core essence of that job remains the same: "Literally anyone can do it."
..

I don't think you know how labour laws work. Like, at all. What you just described is illegal. I can see I've already been beaten to the punch by a great post.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Im curious if you would agree that when Canada Post was bleeding money for years and years.....should the employees have shared the losses?

Do you know for certain that they didn't?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I'd love to see some of your reactions if someone came in to your place of work and offered to do your job for minimum wage. But I guess everyone here is a Doctor or Lawyer right? Everyone here is completely irreplaceable?

A recent study on jobs vulnerable to automation is sobering. Accountants? 98 per cent chance many jobs in the field will be replaced by automated systems in the next 10-20 years. Civil engineering technologists? 75 per cent. Construction estimators? 57 per cent. Medical laboratory technologists? 90 per cent.

I can't bring myself to support keeping inefficient industries and practices alive. But we shouldn't kid ourselves about where this is headed. In 20 years we will only need the labour of maybe 1/3 of the people in Canada. What's everyone else going to do? And how will they pay their bills?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

My point is this, Canada post isn't struggling right now, since restructuring they are making more money than they have in a long time. Those profits should be shared (reasonably) with their employees, instead they are seeking concessions. When a company does well it is better to have their employees share the rewards, since first of all, without them that company doesn't succeed, and secondly it is good for the economy which in the long run is good for that company because it maintains their customers.

You are an accountant, I'm not sure if you run a private business or work for a larger firm, but imagine if you did work for a publicly traded firm, and saw their stock and profits increase every year, while always increasing their fees to clients, yet every year the came to you saying you weren't getting a raise, or they were reducing your pay. Would that seem like the best thing to do, even though it makes sense for them because their profits will go up?

Um. Sure. After Canada Post repays the General Revenue fund for years of absolutely staggering losses.

Its great that they're making money now, but if they'd been a private business they'd have gone under, they didnt because the Federal Government dug into taxpayer pockets to cover their losses while in the meantime their employees, who are more than fairly compensated, took no concessions.

Thats the thing, these guys were getting great pay, great pensions and great benefits when Canada Post was hemorrhaging red ink and not once did any of their benefits, jobs or pay get cut back despite the poor performance of their company.

Now, you say they're making money and the employees should share in that? If you dont share in the risk you shouldnt share in the reward.

So using your example of me, yes I'm an accountant and yes I've worked for big firms and now I work for myself. But if my firm had been basically insolvent for a decade but somehow managed to struggle through and were now making money but said none of that was going to be passed on to me because they have to recover from a down-period and conservative forward estimates then I'd have to decide whether thats for me depending on what my priorities are.

If my priority was job security and I felt I had that and I was still making more money than I could anywhere else comparably its a decision to be made and if I'm willing to take the risks I could strike out on my own.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Do you know for certain that they didn't?

Seriously?

Yeah im certain they didnt.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I can't bring myself to support keeping inefficient industries and practices alive. But we shouldn't kid ourselves about where this is headed. In 20 years we will only need the labour of maybe 1/3 of the people in Canada. What's everyone else going to do? And how will they pay their bills?

Perfect example of why just because we can automate an industry but why we shouldn't:

Detroit, Michigan

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A recent study on jobs vulnerable to automation is sobering. Accountants? 98 per cent chance many jobs in the field will be replaced by automated systems in the next 10-20 years. Civil engineering technologists? 75 per cent. Construction estimators? 57 per cent. Medical laboratory technologists? 90 per cent.

I can't bring myself to support keeping inefficient industries and practices alive. But we shouldn't kid ourselves about where this is headed. In 20 years we will only need the labour of maybe 1/3 of the people in Canada. What's everyone else going to do? And how will they pay their bills?

it's really easy to get a nice comfortable job with decent pay and wages and a pension. hell, its what i have now. but you cant just get there and think 'ok, now everyone else needs to make less to keep costs down everywhere'. globalization, automation, and the race to the bottom in our own country makes me really fear for what kind of world my son will grow up in. where will jobs be? god its scary to think about. and this isnt being dramatic, look at the way salaries and wages have stagnated for decades while inflation keeps going up.

for every story about wanting to get rid of canada post, or, calgary transit workers, or you name it... just consider the tabulated cost of that over decades. lets just lay everyone off and we can all work, where? walmart? everyone is so quick to say "that job doesnt need to exist or pay that much" because its not your job, its not your livelihood. well eventually, as many calgarians have come to experience since the oil slump, bad luck comes to your door. your office is closed because we can open a call centre in manilla and pay them 2 dollars an hour +rice (legit pay out structure for an employer i wont mention). or maybe your plant is closing and moving to mexico. maybe we will just lay off the whole accounting staff and contract it out, so they can hire temps who make minimum wage.

its time people started standing up for everyones jobs because one day it WILL be your job or the job of a loved one and you will want that support to.