Canadian Unions the Biggest Political Spenders in Canada

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

I am skeptical about unions. I appreciate their historic influence in obtaining rights I now take for granted but in some cases the pendulum has swung too far to where their demands are killing manufacturing.

That said at the moment I love them. The union at work negotiated an extra day off after Easter which the company then granted to all employees. 5 day weekend for me yay!

I’m always amazed at how much people take unions for granted. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make by labelling their influence in obtaining rights as historic and then going on to give an example of a right a union was just recently able to gain for not only their members but non union employees as well.

I’m glad that your company decided to give the non union staff the day off as well. For your employer’s sake I hope those employees don’t spend the day asking themselves whether or not it was given to them out of the kindness of their employer’s heart or if it was to make sure their employees don’t spend the day at work considering whether or not they could make similar if not greater gains if they unionized as well.

As for your comment about unions killing the manufacturing industry, unions aren’t killing the manufacturing industry. Outsourcing is. I highly doubt very many unions would be able to get their members to accept the reduction in wages that would be required to compete with what their company would be able to pay for labour in countries with much weaker standards of employment and wages. The same scenario shockingly occurs in non union companies as well, whether they be in the manufacturing, IT, call centre or any other industry.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Germany has more than double the unionization rate of Canada.

There's also a pretty big correlation between national/regional unionization rate and quality of life.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Makarov

So, 20 of the ~120 listed donors were unions. The thread title seems a bit hyperbolic.

The thread title specifically called out spending. I find it informative that you felt the need to deliberately misrepresent OP's title and point - even though you clearly knew what he was talking about.

As an aside, I love how the leader of the Yukon NDP wants, among other things, out of territory donations banned, yet was happy to accept money from the out of territory BC NDP.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m always amazed at how much people take unions for granted.

I'm always amazed how union people think it is the only way to do business and that every company owner is just out to screw their employees. Unions support the lowest common denominator.

[darockwilder]

Originally Posted by Violator

Kinda suprised how much the steelworkers have given seems kinda nuts.

I think the steelworkers union has absorbed a bunch of of other types of workers. I believe that Telus home installers are in that union too, and I think other groups are too.

[CliffFletcher]

A lot of resentment of unions - especially public-sector unions - is they no longer represent the working class, but the middle and upper-middle class. A family with an RCMP officer and a teacher would be in the top 15 or 20 per cent of household incomes. In small communities, especially, the teachers, firefighers, and police are the most affluent families in town.

What strikes people as especially unfair is these comfortable, well-off middle class public servants will retire 10+ years earlier than their private-sector counterparts, with guaranteed pensions that those in the private sector can only dream about. And much of the cost for these upper middle class lifestyles and unparalleled security is being born by people who earn less and have less security. Or the costs are being kicked down the can for our kids to worry about paying for.

At the root of the issue is that arbitrators give no thought to how governments will pay for these salaries and pensions in the future. Governments are compelled to make deals that they can pay for only with greater and greater borrowing, and assuming more unfunded liability. Someday the whole house of cards is going to collapse.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by rotten42

I'm always amazed how union people think it is the only way to do business and that every company owner is just out to screw their employees. Unions support the lowest common denominator.

There is a big difference between believing it is the only way to do business and recognizing that unionized employees on average have better conditions of employment than nonunion employees. Who said anything about every company owner being out to screw their employees?

The lowest common denominator “argument” is always gold. You’re basically stating that the better union workers aren’t benefiting from their membership despite the fact that they are still being paid higher on average than the better workers at non union companies.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by rubecube

There's also a pretty big correlation between national/regional unionization rate and quality of life.

Er...

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-...015005-eng.htm


http://www.macleans.ca/politics/otta...amilys-income/


http://www.progressive-economics.ca/...l-wage-growth/

[jwslam]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

You're making the assumption that the Union understands what is in an individuals best interests better than that individual themselves.

Sounds like this other word I know called "government"

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A lot of resentment of unions - especially public-sector unions - is they no longer represent the working class, but the middle and upper-middle class. A family with an RCMP officer and a teacher would be in the top 15 or 20 per cent of household incomes. In small communities, especially, the teachers, firefighers, and police are the most affluent families in town.

If only the people feeling this resentment would take a moment to consider why those people make more and whether it’s possible to make improvements to their own situation instead of trying to convince someone else they don’t deserve to earn more money than they do.

What strikes people as especially unfair is these comfortable, well-off middle class public servants will retire 10+ years earlier than their private-sector counterparts, with guaranteed pensions that those in the private sector can only dream about. And much of the cost for these upper middle class lifestyles and unparalleled security is being born by people who earn less and have less security. Or the costs are being kicked down the can for our kids to worry about paying for.

The quality of of the average private sector pension has been on the decline for sometime now, wage growth as you alluded to has also stagnated. Care to guess how those things have correlated with union membership levels in the private sector? Private sector employees can do more than dream about the types of pensions, security and compensation that public sectors employees earn, they just have to actually do more than dream about it.

At the root of the issue is that arbitrators give no thought to how governments will pay for these salaries and pensions in the future. Governments are compelled to make deals that they can pay for only with greater and greater borrowing, and assuming more unfunded liability. Someday the whole house of cards is going to collapse.

I’m going to guess you’ve never been involved in an arbitration case with the labour board.

[GGG]

They make more because their isn't any moral hazard to the government paying more to avoid strikes. I think in one of the other threads you posted stats showing that unionized public employees made more for equivalent work than unionized private employees.

Without the risk of bankrupting the company you work for the balance of power is tilted in favour of public unions resulting in Salaries and benefits that the private sector unionized or not can't match.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

They make more because their isn't any moral hazard to the government paying more to avoid strikes. I think in one of the other threads you posted stats showing that unionized public employees made more for equivalent work than unionized private employees.

Without the risk of bankrupting the company you work for the balance of power is tilted in favour of public unions resulting in Salaries and benefits that the private sector unionized or not can't match.

If there was no moral hazard, as you’ve stated countless times, how do you explain how wage freezes occur, why some rounds of bargaining go to arbitration or the fact that there are indeed strikes by public service employees?

They make more money because they position themselves to make greater gains, the same as unionized employees in the private sector who would have to contend with any “moral hazard”.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

If only the people feeling this resentment would take a moment to consider why those people make more and whether it’s possible to make improvements to their own situation instead of trying to convince someone else they don’t deserve to earn more money than they do.

Damn right, those folks are just jealous of our success! Nothing wrong with my executive salary, it's just the free market doing what it does! Trickle down economics! Lower taxes! Screw the poor, they're just lazy, otherwise they'd improve their own situation! Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you ingrates!

... Wait, this is an argument in favour of unions? I thought I'd walked into the Republican National Convention there for a second.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Damn right, those folks are just jealous of our success! Nothing wrong with my executive salary, it's just the free market doing what it does! Trickle down economics! Lower taxes! Screw the poor, they're just lazy, otherwise they'd improve their own situation! Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you ingrates!

... Wait, this is an argument in favour of unions? I thought I'd walked into the Republican National Convention there for a second.

This post made my day.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by GGG

They make more because their isn't any moral hazard to the government paying more to avoid strikes. I think in one of the other threads you posted stats showing that unionized public employees made more for equivalent work than unionized private employees.

Without the risk of bankrupting the company you work for the balance of power is tilted in favour of public unions resulting in Salaries and benefits that the private sector unionized or not can't match.

Not to mention public sector unions almost always enjoy the luxury of holding a monopoly on the contracted labour, so they always have the ability to hold the government hostage.

Right to work legislation is desperately needed to balance this out in the interests of taxpayers at large. If unions truly are better for employees, they should have no fear of allowing individuals the freedom to operate as they see best.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Right to work legislation is desperately needed to balance this out in the interests of taxpayers at large.

Careful crazy_eoj, rule #1 about pushing right to work is you’re supposed to try and convince union members it’s for their benefit, not someone else’s. Otherwise it simultaneously counters the argument that unions are only out for themselves

If unions truly are better for employees, they should have no fear of allowing individuals the freedom to operate as they see best.

You mean like giving them the right to elect their own officials? Why not let the union members who pay their dues decide what is in their own best interest instead of trying to dictate it for them? Does that not suit your narrative? I’d love to hear your explanation on how it is reasonable to force a union to represent a member who doesn’t pay for that representation. You’re arguing for individuals to have the freedom to operate as they see best, or at least you’re trying to, but you don’t seem to understand that right to work doesn’t give an individual union member the option of negotiating their working conditions as an individual, they still fall under the terms of their collective agreement.

[Johnny199r]

My stupid union turned down the chance to piggy back on another group's nice govt contract offer 2 years ago. My union just agreed to much less favourable terms when it was clear that it was a take it or leave it offer from the government last month. Yay dumb union negotiators.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

My stupid union turned down the chance to piggy back on another group's nice govt contract offer 2 years ago. My union just agreed to much less favourable terms when it was clear that it was a take it or leave it offer from the government last month. Yay dumb union negotiators.

If only those negotiators were given a mandate from the members to negotiate a better offer. Members decide whether or not any offer is accepted, not the handful of negotiators.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Not to mention public sector unions almost always enjoy the luxury of holding a monopoly on the contracted labour, so they always have the ability to hold the government hostage.

Right to work legislation is desperately needed to balance this out in the interests of taxpayers at large. If unions truly are better for employees, they should have no fear of allowing individuals the freedom to operate as they see best.

Right to Work legislation doesn't make sense. It's a tragedy of the commons problem. You might as well just ban unions at that point. As that is the purpose of any right to work legislation.

Instead we should expand the essential services language to ensure that any medical, emergency personal, transit, teachers, and public facing people no longer have the right to strike as these are essential to the day to day operation of government. Let them Bargain as a collective but take away their ability to use the electorate against the government.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

If there was no moral hazard, as you’ve stated countless times, how do you explain how wage freezes occur, why some rounds of bargaining go to arbitration or the fact that there are indeed strikes by public service employees?

They make more money because they position themselves to make greater gains, the same as unionized employees in the private sector who would have to contend with any “moral hazard”.

Sorry, the moral Hazard of the public sector is significantly lower than that of the private sector.

I will let you figure out the rest.