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

[Zevo]

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?

My post was only to illustrate that the unions aren't the only ones that take job action. I work for the Vancouver Island Health Authority(VIHA) and most people I work with in HEU and the other various unions make approx. 50,000 a year, which is fine as the schooling requirements and dept load to get there isn't much. To throw around the 100,000+ number for union employees is pretty disengenuous as that would be a very small portion of union workers that get that. Even nurses with 4 years education and at the top of the pay scale don't make that much.

There are things about unions I don't like but seeing waht goes on where I work has swayed me in their favor somewhat. As an example, and I'll try and keep this short, the cleaners at the hospital used to be union and were paid a liveable(but not great) wage of approx. 19/hr. It can be a hard, dirty job, terminal cleaning ORs after surgery, cleaning up after sick patients, etc. There were good, dedicated workers who had been there for years and they basically considered it their careers.

Gordon Campbell likened them to hotel cleaners(no joke) and privatized the cleaners as he thought they were over paid. So now a private company has the contract for cleaning all the hospitals in VIHA. They now start at approx 13/hr and the staff is populated by kids getting their first job, people new to the country, who because of language barriers can't get hired else where, and people with neck and face tattoos.

I'm not even exaggerating. When I worked in Victoria, they were asking employees if they had family members 'back home' that needed a job. Needless to say turnover was, and is high. What used to be a career for people, and an important job in the hosptal has turned into a farce.

Unions are still needed in some sectors as 'for profit' private companies, and public paid managers with bonus incentives, will always be looking for ways to cut corners.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

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

Uhhh....that was pretty much the point I was making. I was pointing out the double-standard you hold towards union and management.

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.

Not, really. My argument is very current as it proves that companies are actively trying to circumvent labour laws by moving the labour to exploitative countries. My point was that private industry does not have a history of compassion or collectively beneficial actions, quite the contrary. Their mandates are to make a profit by any means necessary, and they've proven time and time again that they're incapable of policing themselves. So yes, having an agent that at least somewhat keeps them in check is important.

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.

Just because "many" see it as fair does not make it so. The only requirement they have by law is to pay minimum wage, and we've seen countless examples in the U.S. of pushing to remove minimum wage laws. Again, these companies are not acting with anyone in mind but themselves. Why should we blindly trust them to act in good faith without the presence of unions?

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

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.

You shouldn't be allowed to strike. The public sector profession I'm in is considered an "essential service" and our CBA legally denies the right to strike. I'd say teachers should fall under essential services as well. During one negotiation we didn't have a contract for close to 3 years, we did eventually get a fair contract and got some sweet retro pay, which I personally feel was fair compensation for not working with a contract for 3 years. Don't try to make your point on the backs of our children/future. And before you think I'm just picking on faceless teachers, both my mom and aunt are public schoolteachers.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

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.

Why are we talking about China? We live in Canada.

Apple employees in Canada are not subject to harsh working conditions and below minimum wage pay.

Arguing that unions in Canada are necessary because working conditions at the Foxconn factories in China are bad is stupid.

I'm still waiting for the examples of companies in Canada being allowed to operate with child labor, unsafe work conditions, and below minimum wage pay for employees. Those are things the union fought for 60 years ago. Those are things that the government regulates for EVERYONE in 2013, not just unionized employees.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by edslunch

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.

Nobody said education should be privatized. I'm just saying the teachers union needs to find another way to operate besides the cutthroat 'get what we can even if it comes at expense of the students' approach.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why are we talking about China? We live in Canada.

Apple employees in Canada are not subject to harsh working conditions and below minimum wage pay.

Arguing that unions in Canada are necessary because working conditions at the Foxconn factories in China are bad is stupid.

I'm still waiting for the examples of companies in Canada being allowed to operate with child labor, unsafe work conditions, and below minimum wage pay for employees. Those are things the union fought for 60 years ago. Those are things that the government regulates for EVERYONE in 2013, not just unionized employees.

Do you think minimum wage is a liveable income for anyone other than highschool students or university students that still live at home? Even then is it really liveable? Honest question.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Uhhh....that was pretty much the point I was making. I was pointing out the double-standard you hold towards union and management.

Not, really. My argument is very current as it proves that companies are actively trying to circumvent labour laws by moving the labour to exploitative countries. My point was that private industry does not have a history of compassion or collectively beneficial actions, quite the contrary. Their mandates are to make a profit by any means necessary, and they've proven time and time again that they're incapable of policing themselves. So yes, having an agent that at least somewhat keeps them in check is important.

Again, your argument that unions are necessary are based on happenings that do not occur in Canada. We all know companies outsource to China to get better prices. How is that Canada's fault? How does make it necessary for unions to exist in Canada?

From there your argument falls apart because you are still stuck with the idea that companies are supposed to police themselves. That is simply an outright lie. The Canadian and provincial governments have workplace health and safety laws in place that are quite strict. You have yet to provide me with examples of companies in Canada that are allowed to operate with those 'evil' practices that companies like Foxconn employ in China. Employees are protected in Canada by government regulation. It has nothing to do with the existence of the union, and hasn't for many years. The fact that there are literally millions of non-unionized employees in Canada who do not complain about their work environment proves this.

Just because "many" see it as fair does not make it so. The only requirement they have by law is to pay minimum wage, and we've seen countless examples in the U.S. of pushing to remove minimum wage laws. Again, these companies are not acting with anyone in mind but themselves. Why should we blindly trust them to act in good faith without the presence of unions?

So now your example involves the US? Last time I checked Obama was in favor of increasing the minimum wage.

Oh, and if you would actually bother to do some research on workplace health and safety, you'd realize that companies are required by law to do a lot more than just pay minimum wage.

I haven't dealt with Alberta labor laws, but I know in Manitoba there are countless safety laws to consider when you start a business, build a factory, and hire employees.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Do you think minimum wage is a liveable income for anyone other than highschool students or university students that still live at home? Even then is it really liveable? Honest question.

I think the market should be allowed to dictate salary.

If there is no class mobility it has more to do with the lack of resources to offer affordable post-secondary educations for someone to advance their careers.

Do you think if we simply raised the minimum wage to $25/hour that it would solve anything?

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

You shouldn't be allowed to strike. The public sector profession I'm in is considered an "essential service" and our CBA legally denies the right to strike. I'd say teachers should fall under essential services as well. During one negotiation we didn't have a contract for close to 3 years, we did eventually get a fair contract and got some sweet retro pay, which I personally feel was fair compensation for not working with a contract for 3 years. Don't try to make your point on the backs of our children/future. And before you think I'm just picking on faceless teachers, both my mom and aunt are public schoolteachers.

If the government wants to make teachers an essential service then that would be fine with me. There can be binding arbitration in a labour dispute (although I have heard this typically results in good results for the bargaining unit) rather than all the song and dance whenever a contract comes up.

By the way, the actual impact of a rare full out strike is grossly overstated IMO. I get that it is a major inconvenience for parents, but missing a short time in 12 years shouldn't make or break any students future.

My question was more for those that complain that striking happens during the school year. That is the only time it would have any effect.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

Those are things the union fought for 60 years ago. Those are things that the government regulates for EVERYONE in 2013, not just unionized employees.

What is with the random caps words in your posts? It doesn't make your post more concise, it just looks childish.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

Again, your argument that unions are necessary are based on happenings that do not occur in Canada. We all know companies outsource to China to get better prices. How is that Canada's fault? How does make it necessary for unions to exist in Canada?

From there your argument falls apart because you are still stuck with the idea that companies are supposed to police themselves. That is simply an outright lie. The Canadian and provincial governments have workplace health and safety laws in place that are quite strict. You have yet to provide me with examples of companies in Canada that are allowed to operate with those 'evil' practices that companies like Foxconn employ in China. Employees are protected in Canada by government regulation. It has nothing to do with the existence of the union, and hasn't for many years. The fact that there are literally millions of non-unionized employees in Canada who do not complain about their work environment proves this.



So now your example involves the US? Last time I checked Obama was in favor of increasing the minimum wage.

Oh, and if you would actually bother to do some research on workplace health and safety, you'd realize that companies are required by law to do a lot more than just pay minimum wage.

I haven't dealt with Alberta labor laws, but I know in Manitoba there are countless safety laws to consider when you start a business, build a factory, and hire employees.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is your classic strawman argument.

[Flame Of Liberty]

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.

[Flame Of Liberty]

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.



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?

Is it illegal (in Canada) to fire unionized teacher that went on strike and replace him with a fresh hire?

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by peter12

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

Very fair point.

But the government supports those industries/corporations because those industries/corporations have hugely funded lobbying groups that affect politicians, thereby giving them that favorable government support.

Unions are the workers' response to those lobbying groups. I can't speak much to the Canadian side of this, but in the US this is a huge problem, and definitely right now is a time when unions need to be strengthened and formed, not broken down and defeated. When there are people working 40-50 hours a week at miserable jobs but still need to depend on public assistance to feed their families thanks to the wonderful corporate giants such as Walmart, unionization is about the only hope these people have to someday get an actual living wage out of the multi-billion dollar company they're slaving for.

[Azure]

The government is supposed to help protect the people from evil corporate companies like Walmart. If the government has gotten into bed with the companies instead, perhaps the people who keep voting the same people into power year after year should start voting for someone who WILL protect them.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

The government is supposed to help protect the people from evil corporate companies like Walmart. If the government has gotten into bed with the companies instead, perhaps the people who keep voting the same people into power year after year should start voting for someone who WILL protect them.

Well the choice is becoming towards tweedle dum or tweedle dee, as both parties in the States are mostly owned by big business. You say that's not Canada but what happens south of the border will be happening soon here as well. The only counter to this is you and me and the union.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Azure

The government is supposed to help protect the people from evil corporate companies like Walmart. If the government has gotten into bed with the companies instead, perhaps the people who keep voting the same people into power year after year should start voting for someone who WILL protect them.

Which is a lovely thought, but unfortunately as long as the two-party system exists, and corporations are allowed to funnel endless amounts of money into various campaigns, it's unlikely to happen anytime soon. Even look at the current gun control debate--91% of Americans support increased background checks, including gun owners. But the NRA doesn't want it, so the NRA lobby puts the scare into the politicians and stops it from happening.

Unions are far from perfect, but they keep corporation and industry from having completely unchecked control of those in power.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Is it illegal (in Canada) to fire unionized teacher that went on strike and replace him with a fresh hire?

If they do it outside the framework of their CBA. Not really sure what your point is.

[Yakbutter]

This thread is pointless. Don't you all know we are supposed to bend to the will of our corporate masters?

Who needs safety regulations, livable wages, time off, benefits or some level of job security? Work hard and you will become rich.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Yakbutter

This thread is pointless. Don't you all know we are supposed to bend to the will of our corporate masters?

Who needs safety regulations, livable wages, time off, benefits or some level of job security? Work hard and you will become rich.

This thread is pointless of course if you don't believe any of those things exist in a non-unionized workplace.