Union Propaganda...amusing

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jan 18 2005, 11:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jan 18 2005, 11:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

No, we don't reward them for getting old, we reward them for working for their entire life. Should we take care of the elderly? Yes, I've never said anything different. Should we encourage them to be lazy their entire career knowing that they'll still get better wages/benfits and vactaion when they get older? Absolutely not. Work hard and do your best, if you do that you'll do just fine. The union motto seems to be do the minimum and you'll do better than the guy trying to work hard, because you'll fly under the radar while this guy get's punished for breaking union rules (like working too hard).

I'm pretty sure if you're 65 and Canadian, you don't have to have worked at all to receive a pension. Widowers who have never worked a day in their lives receive their deceased partners pensions. Should these widows be 'rewarded' for not working at all? Talk about lazy... right?

I'm also pretty sure that all Unions do not have some kind of 'don't work hard' motto. When I was unionized I was more afraid of my union rep than my manager, and was made to pull my weight very quickly.

As I said before, Unions have provided Middle-class lives for blue-collar jobs. They may cause innefficiencies, and there are probably examples of abuses. Regardless, the way of life they've provided for manufacturing and service jobs is one that is probably not achieveable without organized negotiation.

If Unions are so bad, do you think they should be abolished in North America? [/b][/quote]
No, I've never said they should be abolished. But they sure as hell shouldn't be run the way they are now. They've for the most part achieved their goals of safe work environments and retirement benefits. It's time to start working on the inefficneices of the unions themselves. Why can't union members wages/benefits/job security be based on merit just like everyone of us non-unionized folk?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Jan 18 2005, 05:38 PM
To be fair, the countries that haven't seen this darmatic increase in well being generally aren't industrialized, or have had incredibly corrupt govenrments. Examples include most of Africa, Russia, parts of Eastern Europe. Look at countries that are industrializing and you'll see that their standard of living is increasing very rapidly (ever hear of China).

For sure, many countries haven't had the 'opportunity' to industrialize in the same fashion we have. It makes sense for many industrialized nations to try and keep others (like Canada, Brazil, SE Asia) focused on primary goods (agriculture, mining, petroleum). That way industrialized states can import raw goods, process them, and then sell them back to the partner-state for a much higher value. It makes sense to keep these states dependent upon resource-based economies for the industrialized state's well-being.

Unfortunately that tends to deny these states the ability to industrialize, which means that those blue-collar middle-class manufacturing jobs aren't around. Just the light-industry, wallet-making coconut-shucking sneaker producing jobs that pay pennies a day. And those are the 'good' jobs.

I have heard of China. China however has the people, resources, and government type (autocratic) to get things done. Most other 'developing' states don't have the advantages China has (or the West, for that matter).

[badnarik]

higher wages should only be tied to worker productivity. the only people who should be for unions are people who think they should be paid more than they are worth. kind of like an extreme minimum wage isnt it?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by badnarik@Jan 18 2005, 05:54 PM
higher wages should only be tied to worker productivity. the only people who should be for unions are people who think they should be paid more than they are worth. kind of like an extreme minimum wage isnt it?

Makes sense. So basically, those Philippinos busting their asses in Nike factories should probably be making a lot more than I (we) do, no? I mean, they work longer hours, work harder, and probably complain less (being without union representation and all).

How come the people that work the hardest now don't get paid the most? Blue-collar jobs work (in many cases) a lot harder than white, yet get paid far less.

Edit: (I guess the easy answer is Phillipino workers aren't as productive as N. American, as they lack access to the tools/machinery that would boost their individual productivity. I'd assume 'sweat off the brow' would count more for what someone should earn than 'sweat off the machine', but thats clearly not the way it works.)

[I-Hate-Hulse]

I'm pretty sure if you're 65 and Canadian, you don't have to have worked at all to receive a pension. Widowers who have never worked a day in their lives receive their deceased partners pensions. Should these widows be 'rewarded' for not working at all? Talk about lazy... right?

Nope, you gotta work to qualify for CPP. Those little bits that come off your cheque? It's what finances you later in life. No work=no salary=no contributions=no CPP.

CRA Link

Widowers get their spouses pensions as presumably they worked, or someone did. Someone has to put food on the table.

I'm also pretty sure that all Unions do not have some kind of 'don't work hard' motto. When I was unionized I was more afraid of my union rep than my manager, and was made to pull my weight very quickly.

I think it's not so much a "be lazy" motto that's in place at the unions but it's more a "don't work harder than your union brother" motto. The lowest common denominator, essentially. Not much room for employees to excel here is there?

As I said before, Unions have provided Middle-class lives for blue-collar jobs. They may cause innefficiencies, and there are probably examples of abuses. Regardless, the way of life they've provided for manufacturing and service jobs is one that is probably not achieveable without organized negotiation.

If Unions are so bad, do you think they should be abolished in North America?

Agamenon - I'll concede your point that unions have provided middle class lives for blue collar jobs. Where else would a janitor make $22 an hour other than in a unionized environment? I'm glad you do recognize the problem in this in that they make organizations more inefficient and in my opinion hinder the business in adapting to new challenges. We just disagree on if the cost of this to business is good or not.

Should they be abolished? No. I've said it before that they do have a place when it comes to physical safety. But they need to lay off the part about dictating to management how to run an organization, and realize that yes, staff job changes and reductions are a part of necessary business. They also need to realize that not everyone in an organization is equal, and to stop bringing down people to the lowest common denominator by not recognizing merit.

Just look at BC as to how unions can negatively impact business, making it so diffucult to conduct business that everyone just leaves.

[Table 5]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jan 18 2005, 01:09 PM
How come the people that work the hardest now don't get paid the most? Blue-collar jobs work (in many cases) a lot harder than white, yet get paid far less.

White collar workers spend anywhere from 4-12 years in school, investing a big part of their life and money into hopes of giving themselves a better life. They sacrifice early for a chance at a better future.

And if you think blue-collar workers get paid "far less", trying hiring a plumber or an electrician. The rates those people charge are exorbitant.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Your taking his work arguement in a different direction. Janitor A should get paid more than Janitor B if Janitor A cleans 3 more buildings than Janitor B does. Under a union system, this wouldn't happen.

How come the people that work the hardest now don't get paid the most? Blue-collar jobs work (in many cases) a lot harder than white, yet get paid far less.

The fact that Janitor A works 12 hours for $35,000 a year vs Banker A who gets $200,000 for pusing paper is an entirely different debate.

I'll say it right now - it ain't fair (oops-hick lingo! ) Learned that lesson slaving away at the Crappy Tire for all of $5.75 an hour as a teen. Came home so dead tried.....but also knew that wasn't want I wanted to do in life. So I went to school and like Table 5 says invested in education. 5 years of University and 3 of articling (which paid a whopping $13.75 an hour in the 1st years). Which is why I now make a lot more than $5.75 and still surf CP all day.

It's not fair but that's the system. No fate but what you make.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Table 5+Jan 18 2005, 06:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Table 5 @ Jan 18 2005, 06:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Jan 18 2005, 01:09 PM
How come the people that work the hardest now don't get paid the most? Blue-collar jobs work (in many cases) a lot harder than white, yet get paid far less.

White collar workers spend anywhere from 4-12 years in school, investing a big part of their life and money into hopes of giving themselves a better life. They sacrifice early for a chance at a better future.

And if you think blue-collar workers get paid "far less", trying hiring a plumber or an electrician. The rates those people charge are exorbitant. [/b][/quote]
Good enough. I was taking issue with the point that 'people who work harder should get paid more'. Obviously its not true, as some of the hardest workers (physically) get paid some of the lowest wages.

I guess 'work' has to be defined.

[Flame On]

Solidarity at all costs
Well here's a link to a foolish union in my eyes. I mean who do they think are being affected the most by the actions of the players refusing to negotiate, but service industry personnel at games etc!!
Anyway, thought it was interesting and current.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

I had a cousin that was supposed to come in on an AC flight last night but never made the flight. The ground crews went on strike out of the blue - here's why:

The dispute involved how workers were clocking in and out for their shifts.

Air Canada had accused some workers of time card abuse, saying they were checking in and out of work on behalf of colleagues who were either arriving late, leaving early, or not showing up at all for their shifts.

The workers claimed they had been swiping electronic time cards on behalf of other workers with a supervisor's permission.

Sound like a good reason to bring the entire airline down to a screeching halt? AC resolved the matter by agreeing not to punish the offending workers. Sounds a little ridiculous - AC should have free reign to discipline anyone that dodges work or abuses the system.

The union leadership didn't support this splinter faction but I'm sure if AC went after the dissidents, they'd raise holy hell.