Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Perhaps you should re-read my post that you quoted.

Perhaps you should read the previous quoted posts that led to that post including yours.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Perhaps you should read the previous quoted posts that led to that post including yours.

Already did. WFH is irrelevant, the content of my post would be just as valid even if they were all working in a congregated setting.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Well, after that thrilling exchange, I’m going to assume we’ve come to the answer that the average employee of the CRA is not highly paid.

Quoting this one more time for the accountants at the back.

CRA employees are not highly paid on average.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Slava

Have you just skipped the past 20 posts?

Are you saying I should read the threads in reverse chronological order? So much work!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Already did. WFH is irrelevant, the content of my post would be just as valid even if they were all working in a congregated setting.

It’s is completely relevant to my post. The question is which benefits should society give to public sector workers and which should they fight back against. Just because a union could extract more benefits in the private sector doesn’t mean we should allow a union to extract more benefits in the public sector.

So before saying quit being a crab in a bucket and join a union one should first discuss if the union demand is reasonable.

[opendoor]

Probably a more accurate way to gauge the average salary is to just use the government's numbers:

Fortier repeated in her letter that the government has offered the union’s members a wage increase of nine per cent over three years, matching the recommendations of the third-party public interest commission released in February. She said the increase would provide the average employee with an extra $6,250 annually.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/forti...-issues-remain


So that being a 9% raise (9.25% compounded) means the average salary is about $67.5K. That's right around the average salary for full time workers in Canada (about $63K in 2022), so I wouldn't call them particularly high paid.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

It’s is completely relevant to my post. The question is which benefits should society give to public sector workers and which should they fight back against. Just because a union could extract more benefits in the private sector doesn’t mean we should allow a union to extract more benefits in the public sector.

So before saying quit being a crab in a bucket and join a union one should first discuss if the union demand is reasonable.

Maybe if you’re viewing it from the perspective of looking for any excuse to avoid first discussing whether or not private sector workers are being under compensated, sure.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Maybe if you’re viewing it from the perspective of looking for any excuse to avoid first discussing whether or not private sector workers are being under compensated, sure.

If you actually want to discuss public compensation for the strike going on it seems like a reasonable thing to talk about. I’m not sure why private sector comp for better or for worse is brought up first anyway. Are the revenue Canada jobs being filled with qualified employees? Is retention for these positions reasonable? If so the working conditions, benefits and wages are fine so just increase with inflation.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You’re still wrong, have you considered asking more questions to try and educate yourself on how strike pay works so that multiple attempts at gotcha moments don’t blow up in your face?

I genuinely would like to know how the strike pay works, specifically to how long the 200 million dollars can last.

I do understand that if the 200 million runs out, there are other means of paying the striking workers. They can borrow money from other unions.

But why is it not as simple as 100,000 workers being paid $75 dollars per day?

I did try and google it, but failed to get anywhere.

The reason why I’m asking is because I was wondering if the strategy would be to try and out wait the union, by running them low on their initial $200 million war chest.

Edit, if you don’t want to answer, obviously you don’t have to. I am asking because you seem like the most knowledgeable person on this forum on this subject.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I genuinely would like to know how the strike pay works, specifically to how long the 200 million dollars can last.

I do understand that if the 200 million runs out, there are other means of paying the striking workers. They can borrow money from other unions.

But why is it not as simple as 100,000 workers being paid $75 dollars per day?

I did try and google it, but failed to get anywhere.

The reason why I’m asking is because I was wondering if the strategy would be to try and out wait the union, by running them low on their initial $200 million war chest.

Edit, if you don’t want to answer, obviously you don’t have to. I am asking because you seem like the most knowledgeable person on this forum on this subject.

I suspect the complexity comes from the requirement for picketing or other union duties be performed in order to get strike pay. The members still have to "work" for it and presumably not all union members will participate in strike activities. But I'm not a union guy so I'm probably wrong.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I genuinely would like to know how the strike pay works, specifically to how long the 200 million dollars can last.

I do understand that if the 200 million runs out, there are other means of paying the striking workers. They can borrow money from other unions.

But why is it not as simple as 100,000 workers being paid $75 dollars per day?

I did try and google it, but failed to get anywhere.

The reason why I’m asking is because I was wondering if the strategy would be to try and out wait the union, by running them low on their initial $200 million war chest.

Edit, if you don’t want to answer, obviously you don’t have to. I am asking because you seem like the most knowledgeable person on this forum on this subject.

You’re operating under the assumption that the Union has to end the strike if their funds run out. They won’t. I don’t think it’ll go long enough for them to run out but we’ll see. Bottom line is that no one goes on strike because they think that strike pay will get them through it. $75/day isn’t a living wage.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You’re operating under the assumption that the Union has to end the strike if their funds run out. They won’t. I don’t think it’ll go long enough for them to run out but we’ll see. Bottom line is that no one goes on strike because they think that strike pay will get them through it. $75/day isn’t a living wage.

I’m not running under that assumption at all. Just curious as to how long the $200 million will last. As I stated, I understand that the union has access to more money after the $200 million runs out.

To be fair, I think that if you are just waiting for the funds to run out, you are not bargaining in good faith.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I’m not running under that assumption at all. Just curious as to how long the $200 million will last. As I stated, I understand that the union has access to more money after the $200 million runs out.

To be fair, I think that if you are just waiting for the funds to run out, you are not bargaining in good faith.

I never suggested that they are waiting for the funds to run out.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You’re still wrong, have you considered asking more questions to try and educate yourself on how strike pay works so that multiple attempts at gotcha moments don’t blow up in your face?

Why won’t you answer the question?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Why won’t you answer the question?

Most likely because there was no question posed in the quoted post that I was responding to.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I never suggested that they are waiting for the funds to run out.

I know you didn’t. I did.

That’s why I was asking.

[Fuzz]

Ya, I'm not sure why iggy isn't answering...I'd like to know too. My assumption is those 100k people went out on day one, but after that there will be far fewer out picketing daily, and occasionally they'll have big days with everyone out. Presumably you only get paid if you spend so many hours a day picketing, so they aren't paying 100k daily. Only those who show up, which may be 20%? I dunno. Union people, is that how it works?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Pretty much as you’ve put it there. It’s your assumptions of how many people in a 100k unit are actually picketing everyday and for how long they’ll be doing so that are where your math gets a little over simplified.

I guess this is as good of an answer we are going to get.

[Derek Sutton]

PSAC requiring 4 hours of picketing per day between the hours of 8am and 2pm to receive the strike pay, no idea how it is paid out. No picketing means no pay.

No idea where the $200 million they have access to has come from, but the fewer who picket, the longer it lasts.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

PSAC requiring 4 hours of picketing per day between the hours of 8am and 2pm to receive the strike pay, no idea how it is paid out. No picketing means no pay.

No idea where the $200 million they have access to has come from, but the fewer who picket, the longer it lasts.

There was an interview of the union head (I think? Anyways, someone from PSAC) that said they have $200mm and they aren't afraid of running out of money...

It's my fault we went off on this tangent, because simple math says $200mm doesn't last long at all if you have 150k people striking (according to what was written by the CBC) and they're paid $75/day to do so... Who would have guessed that union workers don't all strike all days?