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

[The Coppernian One]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Now this is interesting. Should all workers be paid market value? Teacher with 15 years experience, on average, in Canada, will make $55,000 vs $45,000 in the United States. The market suggests that teachers should make much less than they make here. But I think the responsibility that they have dictates that they are worth more than market value, and that by having that higher salary it would attract a higher quality of students to the job.

What if you are working for a company that is making billions in profit. Shouldn't the workers there, that are doing the actual work of the company, be entitled to some of that money? If they are doing so much better than the competition because of the efforts of the people working there, do they not deserve a higher wage?

If a union is demanding a higher wage from a company that is near bankruptcy, then that is foolhardy. But what we are seeing in general is that companies are making HUGE profits, stocks are WAY up and yet the middle class is shrinking as those profits go to the very few at the top of the companies while salaries for workers is dropping.

That average seems low for teachers' salaries. Maybe accurate for Canada, but definately not for Alberta:

http://education.alberta.ca/admin/wo...rsalaries.aspx

On average, a full-time teacher working in Alberta with:

• 4 years of university (Bachelor of Education or B.Ed. degree) earns approximately $58,500.
• 5 years of university with a B.Ed. degree earns aproximately $61,800.
• 6 years of university with a B. Ed. degree earns approximately $65,400.

On average, a full-time teacher working in Alberta with 10+ years of experience and:

• 4 years of university (B.Ed. degree) earns approximately $92,300.
• 5 years of university with a B.Ed. degree earns approximately $95,600.
• 6 years of university with a B. Ed. degree earns approximately $99,300.

Benefits for full-time teachers is approximately worth $7,500 and typically includes life insurance, disability benefits, dental care, extended health care and vision but varies from school authority to school authority. There are always exceptions to these generalizations and so individual collective agreements must be consulted to determine specific pay-rates for each jurisdiction in Alberta. The salary grids for each school authority are usually listed near the end of each collective agreement between the individual school boards and the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA).

That's also for 10 months work (I know there are large amounts of unpaid overtime, activities, etc. during those 10 months).

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This would be why you're so out to lunch on the first part of your post. I would argue that public sector jobs are much more violatile than private-sector jobs. Every year there is a new budget, with new cuts to the public-sector. For guys like you that have a bit of tenure, it's not such an issue as they generally cull from the 20-30 demographic.

Nice try but my closest work buddy sits on the board of the union so aside from board members I'd say I have more general knowledge than the rest of my colleagues. Almost all union jobs are based on seniority, whether it comes to vacation schedule or the off chance of layoffs. I recently received my last pay raise as it is legally defined in our CBA, however we are also in the last year of our CBA. I fully expect a few year wage freeze given the economic climate (and mismanagement by the gov't) and given the choice between layoffs or wage freezes, I'm all for wage freezes even though I would definitely not be one in danger of losing my job. But if they're are layoffs, unfortunately the lowest on the totem pole go 1st, just as it would've been 10 years ago and I was the lowest man on the totem pole. Sometimes people are the victims of poor timing and circumstance. It sucks, but life isn't always fair.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Makarov

How so?

Well, strictly speaking, one can choose to be a union member or not by choosing to work in a unionized or non-unionized workplace (ironically, this is an argument often used by people criticizing unions: "if employees are dissatisfied with the employment terms offered by one employer, they can leave for another employer.") Intuitively, I agree that it seems somewhat undemocratic that employees cannot "opt out" of the union at their workplace. However, the entire raison d'etre of a union depends on the negotiating power derived from collective bargaining and so permitting individual employees to opt out of that collective bargaining would effectively make unionization untenable. I liken it to the idea advocated by some anarchists/wacky conspiracy theorists that residents should be able to "opt out" of the society in which they live. Again, in a very superficial, pseudo-liberal way, this idea has some appeal. However, the entire raison d'etre of a society depends on the advantages of people all living together with understood rules and expectations. Therefore, "opting out" by individuals is an untenable, contradictory idea.

Incidentally, you are completely incorrect about the financial reporting requirements of unions in Canada. They have strict reporting obligations set out in the Canada Labour Code.

Opting out is hardly untenable.

The doctors union is optional. 95% participate anyway. They bargain collectively anyway.

It's only untenable for unions afraid they will lose their power to coerce their members and negotiating partners. The world has moved on for those days. They should have to provide value to their members or dissappear, like everyone else. And if they are providing value, they should have nothing to fear.

I don't think I am incorrect about reporting either. The Canadian labour code covers which workers? 10% maybe? (Honestly not sure). Most regulations are provincial. Some provinces have some requirements but its hardly a standard. Some unions members can get basic financials, some are required to attend an annual meeting to see them, but aren't able to keep them, etc. or so I read. As simple test for me is are their annual reports or financials online? If yes, happy to say I am wrong. In the past they were not.

[Azure]

So let me get this right, teachers should be able to strike in the middle of a school year, thereby screwing over thousands of students, many of whom are in critical years in their development, simply because they get more leverage that way?

Mind boggling. Especially considering we are talking about teachers that make a VERY good living.

One of my high school teachers who had no choice but to strike said that he was making $80,000/year before the strike, and in a small town that is a DAMN fine living. He knew it too, and was pretty torn about the whole strike.

But hey, screw over the students little man at all costs to get I'm entitled too. Sounds a lot like what Wall Street does.

I guess if it is the holy public sector there is nothing wrong with it.

[Azure]

One of the original ideas for the union was workplace safety. I think we all agree that they served their purpose, and workplace safety increased a lot as a result of work the unions did back when.

But this is 2013. Most provinces have workplace health and safety acts that ALL companies including the self employed are REQUIRED to follow.

The general object of the Workplace Safety and Health Act is to protect workers, self-employed persons and others from risks to their safety, health and welfare arising out of, or in connection with, activities in their workplaces. Manitoba’s workplace safety and health legislation is based on the philosophy that responsibility for workplace safety and health is shared in the workplace.

The Workplace Safety and Health Act requires employers to do all that is reasonable and practicable to protect the safety, health and welfare of workers. This includes providing safe equipment, a safe working environment, adequate supervision, information and training. Managers, supervisors and workers have a responsibility to help the employer carry out these responsibilities.

Because employers have the greatest degree of control over the workplace, they also have the greatest degree of legal responsibility for safety and health. However, supervisors and workers have a duty to cooperate in controlling workplace hazards and to take the necessary precautions to protect themselves and others from hazards. Supervisors are responsible for the safety and health of their workers in all areas where they work. Workers are responsible for protecting their safety and health and helping supervisors ensure the safety of their work areas, tools, equipment and machinery.

http://www.gov.mb.ca/ctt/invest/busf...e/s_h_act.html

I can also say from experience that they are pretty strict about it, and if complaints are made, they will force the company to fix safety issues or get shut down. All of this is done WITHOUT any union involvement.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Another beauty union perk. The production side of our business runs 24/7. So lets say you want to take Friday off to go to your big cabin to take your family water skiing. Just clear it with your buddy that he is available to come in and fill in for you. Oh yeah, he'll earn double time, and he'll also need some time off in the near future for the same so, he can expect the same from you. Of course, double time on an already seriously overpaid position, doesn't hurt.

It doesn't happen that way in a union. It can't work that way in most unions. You can't just fill in with your buddy, it has go by seniority. The casual with the most seniority will get called for the shift at regular time. They then go down the list, by seniority. If they can't get someone at regular time, most unions will deny the time off(unless a sick day is used, which does happen, but then definitely can't just 'switch with a buddy').

You can fill out a form to shift swap with someone, but at regular time.

There is no doubt that unions can create complacency in the work place but there is a lot of misinformation and stereotyping going on in this thread.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

If a company won't pay an IT guy what the market value is they won't have any IT guys working for them.

All of that happens without any union involvement.

There are literally millions upon millions of people who work for companies in North America that are not unionized. Are these people subject to harsh working environments, extremely low wages, and brutal torture from their horrible bosses?

Does the Alberta teacher union work to serve the interests of both sides? The students and the taxpayer? Do they demand wages that are in line with what teachers make in other parts of the country? Or will they go on strike regardless of the circumstances, including in the middle of a bloody school year because they think they should get MORE money, even if it comes at the cost of an important year in a students life?

I don't have a problem with unions that work with the other side to get the best possible result. Do all of them do that? Do public-sector unions work to benefit both sides if their wages shoot up 120%? Or are they just padding their own pockets?

The IT example doesn't work so well for public service - if a teacher doesn't want to work for the salary offered how many other options do they have when the government is by far the dominant employer? Unions provide a counter balance to these near monopoly employer situations. I agree that there are negative aspects/side effects to unions but there needs to be a balance

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Azure

So let me get this right, teachers should be able to strike in the middle of a school year, thereby screwing over thousands of students, many of whom are in critical years in their development, simply because they get more leverage that way?

Mind boggling. Especially considering we are talking about teachers that make a VERY good living.

One of my high school teachers who had no choice but to strike said that he was making $80,000/year before the strike, and in a small town that is a DAMN fine living. He knew it too, and was pretty torn about the whole strike.

But hey, screw over the students little man at all costs to get I'm entitled too. Sounds a lot like what Wall Street does.

I guess if it is the holy public sector there is nothing wrong with it.

Doctors take 'job action' all the time because of 'poor working condions', they aren't even a union, and get paid a whole hell of a lot more than most union workers that strike do. The teachers are a pretty militant union, as are the ferry workers out here on the coast. They can piss me off as much as the next guy, but let's not pretend job action is the sole domain of the working middle class. The people at the top like to throw their weight around just as much, often getting better results for themselves.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

One of my high school teachers who had no choice but to strike said that he was making $80,000/year before the strike, and in a small town that is a DAMN fine living. He knew it too, and was pretty torn about the whole strike.

But hey, screw over the students little man at all costs to get I'm entitled too. Sounds a lot like what Wall Street does.

I guess if it is the holy public sector there is nothing wrong with it.

As a self-proclaimed libertarian it really surprises me to see you condemn people for acting out of self-interest. Manpower is a commodity. In the free-market, it's many peoples' only commodity, and they're doing themselves a disservice if they aren't maximizing it's value.

Originally Posted by Azure

One of the original ideas for the union was workplace safety. I think we all agree that they served their purpose, and workplace safety increased a lot as a result of work the unions did back when.

But this is 2013. Most provinces have workplace health and safety acts that ALL companies including the self employed are REQUIRED to follow.



http://www.gov.mb.ca/ctt/invest/busf...e/s_h_act.html

I can also say from experience that they are pretty strict about it, and if complaints are made, they will force the company to fix safety issues or get shut down. All of this is done WITHOUT any union involvement.

There were laws like this prior to the existence of unions and they were constantly flouted. Not only that, but employees were quite consistently fired or punished for reporting unsafe working conditions. Again, unions don't exist just to make your life miserable. There were conditions that created them, primarily the brutal and exploitive nature of private industry. Or do you think we should just trust private industry to maintain fare wages and safety standards because they're such swell guys who don't attempt to exercise every inhumane option possible (i.e. sweatshops, child labour, etc.) to maximize profit?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The IT example doesn't work so well for public service - if a teacher doesn't want to work for the salary offered how many other options do they have when the government is by far the dominant employer? Unions provide a counter balance to these near monopoly employer situations. I agree that there are negative aspects/side effects to unions but there needs to be a balance

The point is that salaries can be dictated by the market without union involvement, and the IT example is used because IT guys tend to not be minimum wage guys.

I realize that teachers can really only work for the government, or go to the private side, who is a vastly smaller employer, or go to the States, which can cause a lot of issues.

The expectation should always to be resourceful, efficient, and most of all to provide results that are beneficial to the 'company' regardless of what kind job you have. I'm all for fair working conditions and good FAIR wages, but from my experience the union isn't about that anymore. Nor does it have to be considering it is 2013, and the government has regulations in place for workplace safety and minimum wage.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Doctors take 'job action' all the time because of 'poor working condions', they aren't even a union, and get paid a whole hell of a lot more than most union workers that strike do. The teachers are a pretty militant union, as are the ferry workers out here on the coast. They can piss me off as much as the next guy, but let's not pretend job action is the sole domain of the working middle class. The people at the top like to throw their weight around just as much, often getting better results for themselves.

What are these poor working conditions we are talking about? When union members went on strike 70 years ago they actually HAD poor working conditions, and IMO they had the right to strike.

We all know the rich make a lot of money, while the middle class struggles. But is the union the solution to that problem? Many people think that companies that post massive profits should pay their workers more, but the companies we are talking about are Google, Apple, Microsoft, Goldman Exxon, etc, etc....and we all know that people who tend to work for them make a very good living. The average salary at Google is around $100,000 IIRC. Average salary for a IT analyst at Exxon is well over $75,000. Goldman, who is probably seen as one of the more 'evil' companies in the world, has an average salary of over $300,000/year. These are companies that post massive profits year after year, and whose CEOs and bigshots take home over $20 million.

What exactly would the union change here?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

As a self-proclaimed libertarian it really surprises me to see you condemn people for acting out of self-interest. Manpower is a commodity. In the free-market, it's many peoples' only commodity, and they're doing themselves a disservice if they aren't maximizing it's value.

You are pretty naive if you think unions don't act out of self-interest either.

In fact unions heads often act in their OWN best interest while screwing over the small guy in the union.

There were laws like this prior to the existence of unions and they were constantly flouted. Not only that, but employees were quite consistently fired or punished for reporting unsafe working conditions. Again, unions don't exist just to make your life miserable. There were conditions that created them, primarily the brutal and exploitive nature of private industry. Or do you think we should just trust private industry to maintain fare wages and safety standards because they're such swell guys who don't attempt to exercise every inhumane option possible (i.e. sweatshops, child labour, etc.) to maximize profit?

If you find ONE example of child labour or sweatshops in Canada that are allowed to legally operate come and tell me. Otherwise your argument is stuck in the 1920s.

The private industry is ALREADY paying wages according to market value, a guideline that many see as 'fair', and they are required by LAW, to have a safe workplace.

What exactly is your point here? That companies in the 1920s exploited child labor and extremely limited wages for their own benefit? Well no #### Sherlock. But you will be hard-pressed to find an example of that TODAY, where workers are subject in inhumane working conditions and the company is still allowed to operate.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Azure

What are these poor working conditions we are talking about? When union members went on strike 70 years ago they actually HAD poor working conditions, and IMO they had the right to strike.

We all know the rich make a lot of money, while the middle class struggles. But is the union the solution to that problem? Many people think that companies that post massive profits should pay their workers more, but the companies we are talking about are Google, Apple, Microsoft, Goldman Exxon, etc, etc....and we all know that people who tend to work for them make a very good living. The average salary at Google is around $100,000 IIRC. Average salary for a IT analyst at Exxon is well over $75,000. Goldman, who is probably seen as one of the more 'evil' companies in the world, has an average salary of over $300,000/year. These are companies that post massive profits year after year, and whose CEOs and bigshots take home over $20 million.

What exactly would the union change here?

The IT guys at Royal Bank should form a union, as their jobs are being offshored while the CEO just got about a $800,000 raise to put him up to 12.6 million/year

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

What are these poor working conditions we are talking about? When union members went on strike 70 years ago they actually HAD poor working conditions, and IMO they had the right to strike.

We all know the rich make a lot of money, while the middle class struggles. But is the union the solution to that problem? Many people think that companies that post massive profits should pay their workers more, but the companies we are talking about are Google, Apple, Microsoft, Goldman Exxon, etc, etc....and we all know that people who tend to work for them make a very good living. The average salary at Google is around $100,000 IIRC. Average salary for a IT analyst at Exxon is well over $75,000. Goldman, who is probably seen as one of the more 'evil' companies in the world, has an average salary of over $300,000/year. These are companies that post massive profits year after year, and whose CEOs and bigshots take home over $20 million.

What exactly would the union change here?

What's the average wage of an Apple worker in China? This is just one example of corporations paying the least they can with the worst safety conditions they can get away with. To rely on corporations and government to look after our interests is the height of stupidity.

[Brannigans Law]

The war on the middle class continues, and the best part is that rich criminals like this D bag are actually convincing middle class people to turn on themselves. Bravo, criminal scum, bravo.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

The point is that salaries can be dictated by the market without union involvement, and the IT example is used because IT guys tend to not be minimum wage guys.

I realize that teachers can really only work for the government, or go to the private side, who is a vastly smaller employer, or go to the States, which can cause a lot of issues.

The expectation should always to be resourceful, efficient, and most of all to provide results that are beneficial to the 'company' regardless of what kind job you have. I'm all for fair working conditions and good FAIR wages, but from my experience the union isn't about that anymore. Nor does it have to be considering it is 2013, and the government has regulations in place for workplace safety and minimum wage.

I have trouble with 'let the market decide' and 'governments need to operate like businesses' when it comes to government services. Governments are not businesses. As you acknowledged there is no real 'market' when it comes to teachers for example. If education was completely privatized and schools were in competition for students and therefore for teachers then this would apply but that's not in the public interest IMHO.

[peter12]

The increasing gap in incomes is probably due to government support of certain industries than the actual free market.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Opting out is hardly untenable.

The doctors union is optional. 95% participate anyway. They bargain collectively anyway.

95% participate because, under the provisions of the Canada Health Act and various provincial legislation, they have no choice but to collectively bargain. Under that legislation, doctors are not able to negotiate individual rates with provincial insurers.

Even if doctors were able to bargain individually, they are a poor example because, due to professional regulation (again, set out in provincial legislation), their numbers are restricted and they have an artificially high amount of negotiating power.

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

It's only untenable for unions afraid they will lose their power to coerce their members and negotiating partners.

Yes, exactly. That is explicitly the raison d'etre for all unions. Why shouldn't they? Corporations, for example, do everything in their power to coerce their negotiating partners, whether they be employees, suppliers, customers, etc. Indeed, they are routinely celebrated for such by the anti-union crowd around here. No doubt some individual members of that corporation (i.e., shareholders) wish that the corporation they own behaved differently sometimes.

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

The world has moved on for those days. They should have to provide value to their members or dissappear, like everyone else. And if they are providing value, they should have nothing to fear.

Apparently they do provide value to the majority of their members or they would indeed disappear (i.e., de-certification.)

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I don't think I am incorrect about reporting either. The Canadian labour code covers which workers? 10% maybe? (Honestly not sure). Most regulations are provincial. Some provinces have some requirements but its hardly a standard. Some unions members can get basic financials, some are required to attend an annual meeting to see them, but aren't able to keep them, etc. or so I read. As simple test for me is are their annual reports or financials online? If yes, happy to say I am wrong. In the past they were not.

Generally speaking, the Canada Labour Code applies to industries over which the federal government has jurisdiction (such as shipping, telecommunications, airports, etc.) I have no idea what share of the workforce that includes, but something substantial obviously. In any event, all other industries are subject to the various provincial labour codes, most of which also require financial reporting by certified unions (although I believe that Alberta is one of perhaps two provinces that does not require it.)

Of course, the major source of accountability for unions is their members. In Canada, unlike in the US or UK, there is little legislation governing union elections or the duties of union officers to their members. However, this is largely because unions in Canada have developed a strong culture of democracy and have avoided wide scale corruption (if anyone is interested in this topic, this article is a good starting point.)

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by peter12

The increasing gap in incomes is probably due to government support of certain industries than the actual free market.

This is a novel argument. Care to flesh it out a little bit?

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by Azure

So let me get this right, teachers should be able to strike in the middle of a school year, thereby screwing over thousands of students, many of whom are in critical years in their development, simply because they get more leverage that way?

Mind boggling. Especially considering we are talking about teachers that make a VERY good living.

As a teacher, I'm always curious to see what people think the appropriate time to strike is, if it is not the school year.