Unions in Canada

[August1991]

With union negotiations in Canada in the news (GM, Chrysler, Toronto and Ontario's liquor commission), it is worth pointing out a few statistics.

In 2007, Canada had a paid labour force of about 17.6 million people. Of these, about 4.5 million are unionized or about 25%. This percentage has been steadily declining over the past 50 years or so. In 1997 for example, this percentage was 27%. Link

This percentage however hides some significant facts. Union membership in Canada is now largely an affair of the public sector where typically around 75% of all employees are unionized whereas in the private sector, only about 20% of employees are unionized. Link

[i think this statistics understates the size of public sector unions. I think that unionized employees of crown corporations are counted as in the "private sector".]

Moreover, this trend is increasing, and it increasingly means that women working in the public sector are unionized and everyone else is not:

Based on Statistics Canada numbers, union membership between 1997-2007 actually increased 19 per cent, or by 660,000, the largest increase since the 1970s. However, total employment grew faster than union membership, rising by 23 per cent over the same period. Thus, union density declined despite the impressive membership growth. The continuing losses in the private sector and male unionization rates were most noticeable.

...

In fact, nearly three-quarters of the membership growth over the 1997-2007 period is accounted for by the public sector, especially the education and health services. The impressive increase in membership growth and density among women is almost entirely a public sector effect, where women account for a substantial share of employment.

Link

The trend seems obvious. Public sector unions will get larger and private sector unions will get smaller. Unions in Canada will increasingly be a synonym for a public sector employee.

-----

This is a strange situation and I don't know if it is duplicated in other countries. Unions are growing in the one sector where they have access to other people's money through a political process that has difficulty saying no. Politicians can raise taxes or borrow.

OTOH, politicians can also pass back-to-work legislation, retroactively change public sector labour contracts or arbitrarily decide that certain workers are deemed essential. Politicians write the legislation governing the existence of unions.

I don't know what to make of the fact that women will increasingly dominate unions. Most politicians are men and men pay more taxes than women. And many women are not in public sector unions.

[charter.rights]

In the last 20 years we have enjoyed relative prosperity with a few recessions now and then but nothing that would change much. Unions are not all that necessary when there is a good economy because it is easy to share the wealth.

However, with the economy tanked and predictions from economist suggesting that our recovery will never reach the levels of the last 20 years, unions become more relevant.

I would predict that we will see an increase in the union in both private and public sectors as people realize the raw deal we get from corporations and their greedy profits.

[tango]

I tend to see data about change over time as a reflection of changing times, trends, demographics, and human evolution.

One way to look at it is this:

Proportionately more women than men are opting for unionized public service, which provides decent pay and relative security that stabilize the family and accommodate their growing families (job flexibility/transfers, maternity leaves, benefits, etc.).

Proportionately more men than women are opting for the riskier but potentially more lucrative private sector, because they can afford to take the risks as their family is stabilized by the wife's income and benefits.

However, another way might be that it is not a social development at all, but simply a reflection of the huge losses in the largely male and largely unionized manufacturing sector.

It's more likely though that it is a combination of all of these things as well as the aging of the work force: The baby-boom bulge is now about 45 years old. This age demographic, for example, accounts for increases in staffing the health sector. The mini-boomers may account for some education increases, but the fact is that more students are staying in school longer, especially attending post-secondary, than in past generations.

As the new technologies and other fledgling new industries stabilize, I predict we will see the return of unionization there.

I think my main point is this: These are not necessarily linear trends that will continue on their present path. Rather, they are trends that reflect the current demographic and production influences, and will change as these factors change.

I'd have to have the raw data itself to analyze these contributing factors.

Btw, August: Do you know what the biggest money waster in the public service is?

It's politics. Specifically, political regime changes after elections.

First, all the logos and letterheads are replaced and the old ones sent ... somewhere, I hope for recycling. We're not allowed to recycle them ourselves - eg, using them for draft printing. All old paper is collected. Do you know how much it costs to replace all the paper in the public sector? Neither do I but it is friggen HUGE!

Second, armies of wet-behind-the-ears political party hacks descend upon the public service, given 'special' positions (ie NEW positions, new money) where they strike fear into every level of the bureaucracy, right to the top. Their job is to root out the old regime from among the staff - those who do not conform to the new politics.

Third, most or all projects-in-progress are shelved (no matter how many years they were in development or how much money has been spent on them) until they can be 'reviewed and evaluated' in the new political context.

Fourth ... After all the party hacks report to the political masters, to whom they have direct access, then the restructuring begins. (hack and slash and promote the brown-nosers, etc.) ka-ching!

Then comes visioning and missioning and action planning ... and then all the new policies, retraining, re-supplying ... and throwing out the babies with the bathwater en masse and starting all over again to replace them.

How many times have I been through this? Don't even ask ... and that's only one level of government.

... I could go on and on and on ... but I think you get a small glimpse of the picture.

In other words, unions do not account for public sector 'bloating' or 'waste': Politics does.

There's no secret to why unions are an absolute necessity in the public sector: If we didn't have union protection and 'bumping rights', after every election the entire public service would be replaced by political hacks and cronies.

I kid you not.

Edited June 22, 2009 by tango

[Argus]

Public sector employers tend to be liberal in their labour policies, and have, over the previous decades, encouraged unionization. Private sector employers have tended to discourage unionization. With the increasing competition from cheaper, offshore labour in exactly the sectors (mining, manufacturing) which have historically been most susceptible to unionization, and the subsequent loss of jobs in those areas, the private sector has been successful in portraying unions not as a means to a more lucratice paycheque but as a path to unemployment.

The increasing trend towards part-time work, and the transitory nature of employees in other sectors (services, tourism) makes it difficult to sign up membership. And there, too, competition from others helps employers portray unionzaton as the road to unemployment.

Wal-mart goes a long way to avoid unions. It keeps as few permanent employees as possible, makes employees watch what are basically anti-union propaganda films, and ultimately closes down stores where unionization occurs. The big banks have, by hook or by crook, succeeded over the years in keeping unions out of their workplace, though I'm not entirely sure how they do it. Certainly it's not because they pay well and have great benefits, or because they treat employees fairly.

Then we have the rise of "professionals", such as computer workers, for example, who consider themselves to be above unions, even though in most categories employers consider them disposable workers to be worked as hard as possible with long periods of unpaid overtime.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Argus

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Public sector employers tend to be liberal in their labour policies, and have, over the previous decades, encouraged unionization. Private sector employers have tended to discourage unionization. With the increasing competition from cheaper, offshore labour in exactly the sectors (mining, manufacturing) which have historically been most susceptible to unionization, and the subsequent loss of jobs in those areas, the private sector has been successful in portraying unions not as a means to a more lucratice paycheque but as a path to unemployment.

The increasing trend towards part-time work, and the transitory nature of employees in other sectors (services, tourism) makes it difficult to sign up membership. And there, too, competition from others helps employers portray unionzaton as the road to unemployment.

Wal-mart goes a long way to avoid unions. It keeps as few permanent employees as possible, makes employees watch what are basically anti-union propaganda films, and ultimately closes down stores where unionization occurs. The big banks have, by hook or by crook, succeeded over the years in keeping unions out of their workplace, though I'm not entirely sure how they do it. Certainly it's not because they pay well and have great benefits, or because they treat employees fairly.

Then we have the rise of "professionals", such as computer workers, for example, who consider themselves to be above unions, even though in most categories employers consider them disposable workers to be worked as hard as possible with long periods of unpaid overtime.

Unions have had their day and damned near priced themselves out a job in many cases. I would prefer simply stronger labour laws, but what else can I say.

[Topaz]

With union negotiations in Canada in the news (GM, Chrysler, Toronto and Ontario's liquor commission), it is worth pointing out a few statistics.

In 2007, Canada had a paid labour force of about 17.6 million people. Of these, about 4.5 million are unionized or about 25%. This percentage has been steadily declining over the past 50 years or so. In 1997 for example, this percentage was 27%. Link

This percentage however hides some significant facts. Union membership in Canada is now largely an affair of the public sector where typically around 75% of all employees are unionized whereas in the private sector, only about 20% of employees are unionized. Link

[i think this statistics understates the size of public sector unions. I think that unionized employees of crown corporations are counted as in the "private sector".]

Moreover, this trend is increasing, and it increasingly means that women working in the public sector are unionized and everyone else is not:Link

The trend seems obvious. Public sector unions will get larger and private sector unions will get smaller. Unions in Canada will increasingly be a synonym for a public sector employee.

-----

This is a strange situation and I don't know if it is duplicated in other countries. Unions are growing in the one sector where they have access to other people's money through a political process that has difficulty saying no. Politicians can raise taxes or borrow.

OTOH, politicians can also pass back-to-work legislation, retroactively change public sector labour contracts or arbitrarily decide that certain workers are deemed essential. Politicians write the legislation governing the existence of unions.

I don't know what to make of the fact that women will increasingly dominate unions. Most politicians are men and men pay more taxes than women. And many women are not in public sector unions.

Of course, men pay more in taxes because they MAKE more than women and women know they have to join a union to protect themselves from the greedy companies. The Tory Feds. have to asked over and over again by the opposition to fix equal pay but they haven't and they probably won't. If companies care more about their employees than trying to make the billions $$, then unions would have to be. All unions are not the same and therefore you can't judge a unions by one that maybe be as good as the others.

[tango]

Unions have had their day and damned near priced themselves out a job in many cases.

Ya ... that's just what the bosses want you to think.

Good boy! (pat,pat)

Now work harder because you are so lucky to be working for me!!

No doggie biscuits till we make quota!!

And no dropping dead on the job, eh?

It doesn't look good, and it slows the pace.

And if you can't hack the pace, gedthefugouddahere slacker!!

There's a lot more where you came from! :angry:

(Geez ... we have no dead smiley! )

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Ya ... that's just what the bosses want you to think.

Good boy! (pat,pat)

Now work harder because you are so lucky to be working for me!!

No doggie biscuits till we make quota!!

And no dropping dead on the job, eh?

It doesn't look good, and it slows the pace.

And if you can't hack the pace, gedthefugouddahere slacker!!

There's a lot more where you came from! :angry:

(Geez ... we have no dead smiley! )

I am a unionized worker, are you? My membership within the union allows me to speak as one of them. There are many things being said on here about unions, some good but most bad. From an inside of the box perspective I can say that the union movement has resulted in most of the labour law in Canada, and that workers are better off than they used to be. Again from that inside view I can tell you that there is a very hectic political aspect to the union movement. Union dues only go one direction and that is up, meanwhile many are concerned with how that money is spent.

Unions are a very different kind of association.

[Wild Bill]

Ya ... that's just what the bosses want you to think.

Good boy! (pat,pat)

Now work harder because you are so lucky to be working for me!!

No doggie biscuits till we make quota!!

And no dropping dead on the job, eh?

It doesn't look good, and it slows the pace.

And if you can't hack the pace, gedthefugouddahere slacker!!

There's a lot more where you came from! :angry:

(Geez ... we have no dead smiley! )

We didn't make quota but here's a biscuit anyway!(pat, pat)

There's no need for a quota 'cuz we have a HUGE excess inventory!

Nobody is buying our products 'cuz they can buy the Chinese ones cheaper!

So we're shutting down the plant.

Now you won't have to work so hard.

Tango, it's not as if the issue is only between union and management. Sooner or later you need to sell the product or the service outside of the shop floor.

There's not that many of us who pay attention as to the source of what we're buying, at least as yet. It's hard to give a generous union contract when you're facing bankruptcy.

Unless your money comes from taxes, of course. Like with the Toronto civic union strike. The citizens have NO alternate choices for their services. In the public sector, the unions usually enjoy a monopoly.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Unions, whether public sector or private sector are protected by law, and governed by law.

[jdobbin]

I don't know what to make of the fact that women will increasingly dominate unions. Most politicians are men and men pay more taxes than women. And many women are not in public sector unions.

That's a neat wrap: Showing your disdain for women and unions in the same breath.

[tango]

I am a unionized worker, are you? My membership within the union allows me to speak as one of them. There are many things being said on here about unions, some good but most bad. From an inside of the box perspective I can say that the union movement has resulted in most of the labour law in Canada, and that workers are better off than they used to be. Again from that inside view I can tell you that there is a very hectic political aspect to the union movement. Union dues only go one direction and that is up, meanwhile many are concerned with how that money is spent.

Unions are a very different kind of association.

You can ask personal questions on an anonymous board if you like ... but no one has to answer them.

Did you miss the point of my post perhaps?

[tango]

We didn't make quota but here's a biscuit anyway!(pat, pat)

There's no need for a quota 'cuz we have a HUGE excess inventory!

Nobody is buying our products 'cuz they can buy the Chinese ones cheaper!

So we're shutting down the plant.

Now you won't have to work so hard.

Tango, it's not as if the issue is only between union and management. Sooner or later you need to sell the product or the service outside of the shop floor.

There's not that many of us who pay attention as to the source of what we're buying, at least as yet. It's hard to give a generous union contract when you're facing bankruptcy.

Unless your money comes from taxes, of course. Like with the Toronto civic union strike. The citizens have NO alternate choices for their services. In the public sector, the unions usually enjoy a monopoly.

Bill it appears to me that you are caught by the demise of manufacturing in North America, an inevitable phenomenon as developing countries became developed enough to do the work, while their workers are still not unionized and are still willing to work for peanuts. It's a bad time. I get that, and didn't mean to rub salt in the wounds.

However, I strongly disagree with Jerry J (thus the sarcasm) that the unions have 'caused' the problem by pricing themselves out of the market. There is just no way we can compete with developing China. It's just an unfortunate reality.

In fact, as I wrote that I wasn't even thinking about manufacturing at all (cos I wouldn't rub salt that way intentionally) ... but about this ... our 'new' (developing) economy:

Then we have the rise of "professionals", such as computer workers, for example, who consider themselves to be above unions, even though in most categories employers consider them disposable workers to be worked as hard as possible with long periods of unpaid overtime.

I know these people ... mostly guys ... they are worked like slaves ... and they're taught they are 'too good' for unions. Keeps them working all that unpaid overtime because they are terrified of "pricing themselves out of the market", which is slave-driver bs propaganda, imo, and they are too terrified to admit they can't do it faster.

A door closes ... a window opens ... but it's miles away and of no g'damn use when you're stuck behind the closed door.

An industry dies ... another is born ... and while it may help the economic recovery, it doesn't help the people in the plants a darn bit.

Consumers are fickle when it comes to saving a buck, and 'buy Canadian' will never be the answer either, imo.

You sound like a good boss - biscuits and all. Sorry for your pain.

[August1991]

Of course, men pay more in taxes because they MAKE more than women and women know they have to join a union to protect themselves from the greedy companies.

I'm perfectly aware of why men pay more taxes than women. In Canada, people with high incomes pay more taxes and men, on average, have higher incomes than women. Women still pay taxes though and typically they pay more, as a portion of their income, than men do.

And Topaz, unions in Canada largely don't exist in the private sector to defend workers against "greedy" companies. Unions in Canada exist largely in the public sector. Why? Are Canadian governments rapacious, greedy employers?

And why do employees at Walmart pay taxes so that municipal office clerks can accumulate 18 sick days per year?

That's a neat wrap: Showing your disdain for women and unions in the same breath.

How does that show disdain?

I merely note what statistics show. Unions in Canada are largely and increasingly a phenomenon of the public sector, and of women.

Dobbin, political correctness can make people say that the sky is green but it can't change the sky's colour.

Edited June 22, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

How does that show disdain?

Your disdain for women shines through in many posts. In this case, you make several claims without any evidence

I merely note what statistics show. Unions in Canada are largely and increasingly a phenomenon of the public sector, and of women.

I know that unions are stronger in the public sector. Please show me your evidence that they are increasingly for women. More women are employed in the public sector than in the manufacturing sector but public sector unions are not dominantly women.

Dobbin, political correctness can make people say that the sky is green but it can't change the sky's colour.

I am questioning your claim on women and unions.

As far as I'm concerned, it shows a pattern of your disdain for women.

Edited June 22, 2009 by jdobbin

[August1991]

I am questioning your claim on women and unions.

Question Pradeep Kumar, a retired professor at Queen's University whose article is linked in my OP:

The impressive increase in membership growth and density among women is almost entirely a public sector effect, where women account for a substantial share of employment.

It needs to be emphasized that a vast majority of women work in the private service sector, where union density continues to be very low.

[Pliny]

We didn't make quota but here's a biscuit anyway!(pat, pat)

There's no need for a quota 'cuz we have a HUGE excess inventory!

Nobody is buying our products 'cuz they can buy the Chinese ones cheaper!

So we're shutting down the plant.

Now you won't have to work so hard.

Tango, it's not as if the issue is only between union and management. Sooner or later you need to sell the product or the service outside of the shop floor.

There's not that many of us who pay attention as to the source of what we're buying, at least as yet. It's hard to give a generous union contract when you're facing bankruptcy.

Unless your money comes from taxes, of course. Like with the Toronto civic union strike. The citizens have NO alternate choices for their services. In the public sector, the unions usually enjoy a monopoly.

Very good points.

Unions in the private sector are short sighted and generally wind up killing the golden goose (corporations they learn to despise) and their jobs. (Gosh.. there's no dead smiley!)

In the public sector they have a monopoly. There is no threat to their jobs, pay or benefits. The economy will be rifled by taxation and the country would have to be on the brink of revolution before any public sector unions consider making any concessions. They don't seem to make the connection between their paychecks and taxes.

I know when I was a union member I knew little about economics and didn't care to learn anymore. I knew from personal experience Unions were pretty heavy handed if you didn't toe the line and that was something about them that irked me. As for what was happening in society economically, I think my only thought was that when times were tough business people were kind of stupid to be suffering and should get union jobs and that good times for them would be short lived. There was no connection between my economic well-being and the state of the economy. It's an insulated existence without any understanding of how my wealth was generated out of the economy. I didn't understand that what I did had anything to do with generating wealth and I don't think many of my union brothers did either judging from their attitude of entitlement. Some truly enjoyed their work but most were content to just do enough to get by. A poor work ethic and an attitude of self-righteous entitlement are bred in most union jobs in my opinion. I liked the work I was doing so I didn't mind it but had to kind of accommodate demands to slow down, not work so hard and toe the union line.

[Wild Bill]

A door closes ... a window opens ... but it's miles away and of no g'damn use when you're stuck behind the closed door.

An industry dies ... another is born ... and while it may help the economic recovery, it doesn't help the people in the plants a darn bit.

No, I've never been a boss or a member of a union. I've had a few lower management positions but that's about it. My career was in the high tech electronics world, selling parts like IC's, computer chips and capacitors to manufacturers and industrial maintenance/repair/overhaul accounts. I rode the wave from the mid -70's to 2001.

It was a very fast paced and 'casual atmosphere' world. Intel executives would show up to give us training sessions in tennis shoes and shorts. Everyone was called by their first name, even the president of a company like Motorola. Business approaches were very leading edge. We looked at industries like the auto makers as dinosaurs and couldn't understand how a business operating in such a primitive fashion could possibly stay profitable. They were so huge that it took a few decades but look at them now! They're ready to lie down and get compressed into petroleum.

Your points about how "another door opening" doesn't necessarily help a particular individual is valid, I would agree. That's why I had no use for Dion and his concept of 'green jobs'. McGuinty has picked up that torch as well. They don't seem to understand how business operates at all.

First off, they take it for granted that all these green jobs will miraculously appear, without any specifics as to what kind of jobs they will be and how the companies that provide them will pay high wages comparable to old-style manufacturing jobs. New jobs assembling solar cell panels or wind turbines will more likely pay relatively low wages, especially with a large pool of unemployed to draw on.

Second, the baby boom has meant that the bulk of the workers losing their jobs in traditional jobs are older and not likely to be hired for a new industry. Just because the law says you can't discriminate on the basis of age means diddleysquat. You simply don't get past the first interview. There's no company so stupid as to actually tell you "we want a younger person for the job". It just happens. The popular conception is that hiring a younger worker means you will have him longer. No one thinks that usually he leaves in a few years for a better job or that you yourself will experience a downturn and have to lay him off!

What's more, most modern industries don't want an ex-auto worker! Someone who spent their entire career in that union environment is likely to carry some baggage with them.

I'll give you a "fer instance" that I know for a fact was absolutely true for Varity Corporation, the former Massey Ferguson in Brantford and is still practiced today at General Motors in St. Catherines. I've no doubt it's the norm in the manufacturing industry.

The workers with the most seniority get laid off first!

What's more, they want it that way! It's part of their deal!

If a non-union, ordinary Canadian is laid off he applies for EI. If he makes a few dollars on the side he's expected to claim them on his report cards and he will be docked accordingly. Most make far less than their normal pay.

At GM, the company pays a supplement to the EI payment that raises the total to about 90% of the takehome pay. So the workers with the most seniority take the layoff as a paid holiday. EI has no problem with them receiving the extra pay.

I guess EI feels that union citizens are of higher class than non-union citizens.

The guys with less seniority continue to work, accumulating 'time in' towards their own seniority.

I doubt if the average Canadian feels that this is fair. Or that he's more inclined to support federal bailout packages to save the jobs of union workers that have had it much better than he has!

Oh well, what else is new?

Edited June 22, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The auto industry is a very special case. A huge chunk of Ontario industry is in this sector, and so are a huge chunk of votes. Thats why we have spent 2.5 million dollars a job to keep GM floating around.

[August1991]

I'll give you a "fer instance" that I know for a fact was absolutely true for Varity Corporation, the former Massey Ferguson in Brantford and is still practiced today at General Motors in St. Catherines. I've no doubt it's the norm in the manufacturing industry.

The workers with the most seniority get laid off first!

What's more, they want it that way! It's part of their deal!

If a non-union, ordinary Canadian is laid off he applies for EI. If he makes a few dollars on the side he's expected to claim them on his report cards and he will be docked accordingly. Most make far less than their normal pay.

At GM, the company pays a supplement to the EI payment that raises the total to about 90% of the takehome pay. So the workers with the most seniority take the layoff as a paid holiday. EI has no problem with them receiving the extra pay.

Wild Bill, your example is counterintuitive but it raises a central point of all unions: seniority.

In Quebec, seniority is now typically a complicated formula calculated to three decimal places. Seniority decides all staffing decisions and it decides much else. (BTW, the Soviets had an equivalent system, it was referred to as ставка or stavka - a person's rate or grade.)

Bureaucratic systems are built on such terms.

[Alta4ever]

I tend to see data about change over time as a reflection of changing times, trends, demographics, and human evolution.

One way to look at it is this:

Proportionately more women than men are opting for unionized public service, which provides decent pay and relative security that stabilize the family and accommodate their growing families (job flexibility/transfers, maternity leaves, benefits, etc.).

Proportionately more men than women are opting for the riskier but potentially more lucrative private sector, because they can afford to take the risks as their family is stabilized by the wife's income and benefits.

However, another way might be that it is not a social development at all, but simply a reflection of the huge losses in the largely male and largely unionized manufacturing sector.

It's more likely though that it is a combination of all of these things as well as the aging of the work force: The baby-boom bulge is now about 45 years old. This age demographic, for example, accounts for increases in staffing the health sector. The mini-boomers may account for some education increases, but the fact is that more students are staying in school longer, especially attending post-secondary, than in past generations.

As the new technologies and other fledgling new industries stabilize, I predict we will see the return of unionization there.

I think my main point is this: These are not necessarily linear trends that will continue on their present path. Rather, they are trends that reflect the current demographic and production influences, and will change as these factors change.

I'd have to have the raw data itself to analyze these contributing factors.

Btw, August: Do you know what the biggest money waster in the public service is?

It's politics. Specifically, political regime changes after elections.

First, all the logos and letterheads are replaced and the old ones sent ... somewhere, I hope for recycling. We're not allowed to recycle them ourselves - eg, using them for draft printing. All old paper is collected. Do you know how much it costs to replace all the paper in the public sector? Neither do I but it is friggen HUGE!

Second, armies of wet-behind-the-ears political party hacks descend upon the public service, given 'special' positions (ie NEW positions, new money) where they strike fear into every level of the bureaucracy, right to the top. Their job is to root out the old regime from among the staff - those who do not conform to the new politics.

Third, most or all projects-in-progress are shelved (no matter how many years they were in development or how much money has been spent on them) until they can be 'reviewed and evaluated' in the new political context.

Fourth ... After all the party hacks report to the political masters, to whom they have direct access, then the restructuring begins. (hack and slash and promote the brown-nosers, etc.) ka-ching!

Then comes visioning and missioning and action planning ... and then all the new policies, retraining, re-supplying ... and throwing out the babies with the bathwater en masse and starting all over again to replace them.

How many times have I been through this? Don't even ask ... and that's only one level of government.

... I could go on and on and on ... but I think you get a small glimpse of the picture.

In other words, unions do not account for public sector 'bloating' or 'waste': Politics does.

There's no secret to why unions are an absolute necessity in the public sector: If we didn't have union protection and 'bumping rights', after every election the entire public service would be replaced by political hacks and cronies.

I kid you not.

I could solve these problems for you with one quick simple answer. Smaller government smaller bueacracy, in others words get rid of most postitions, privatize most everything else. Government is not a service provider it is a service liability, far out essential funkions to private corporations and get rid of the public unions.

[August1991]

Public sector employers tend to be liberal in their labour policies, and have, over the previous decades, encouraged unionization.

Liberal? You mean that public sector employers "tend to" have access to taxpayers bank accounts, or credit cards.

The point of this OP/thread seems to have been lost: Why are Canadian unions increasingly organized around public sector employees who receive their salary from taxpayers (ie. people who go to jail if they don't pay their taxes.)? Then again, if I were a union, I wouldn't organize Visa or Mastercard employees. I'd organize public sector employees.

Unions in the private sector are short sighted and generally wind up killing the golden goose (corporations they learn to despise) and their jobs. (Gosh.. there's no dead smiley!)

In the public sector they have a monopoly. There is no threat to their jobs, pay or benefits. The economy will be rifled by taxation and the country would have to be on the brink of revolution before any public sector unions consider making any concessions. They don't seem to make the connection between their paychecks and taxes.

Pliny, you may have a point. But why are unions increasingly dominated by women?

And what does all this mean for Canada?

Edited June 22, 2009 by August1991

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It means more women are being hired by employers with unions and there is a corresponding number going into small "p" politics in the union.

[Peter F]

Liberal? You mean that public sector employers "tend to" have access to taxpayers bank accounts, or credit cards.

The point of this OP/thread seems to have been lost: Why are Canadian unions increasingly organized around public sector employees who receive their salary from taxpayers (ie. people who go to jail if they don't pay their taxes.)? Then again, if I were a union, I wouldn't organize Visa or Mastercard employees. I'd organize public sector employees.

Im pretty sure that public servants who dont pay taxes are liable for jail terms also...just like everybody else.

Regarding who you would or would not unionize, Why wouldn't you help organize Visa or Mastercard employee's? Because they don't make enough money? it seems to me that you have no idea what unions are for.

But why are unions increasingly dominated by women?

And what does all this mean for Canada?

Maybe, just maybe, women find that they are better protected against abusive managers if they have a union. What it means for Canada is that we will become a happier more content place.

[August1991]

Maybe, just maybe, women find that they are better protected against abusive managers if they have a union. What it means for Canada is that we will become a happier more content place.

WTF? Government managers are more abusive of women than private managers?

Im pretty sure that public servants who dont pay taxes are liable for jail terms also...just like everybody else.

Regarding who you would or would not unionize, Why wouldn't you help organize Visa or Mastercard employee's? Because they don't make enough money? it seems to me that you have no idea what unions are for.

Peter F, sorry to be impolite but you are utterly clueless, and your comment about women is just as meaningless.

Apparently, Canadian union organizers have astutely chosen employers (taxpayers) with deep pockets - so deep, that they go to jail if they don't pay. If you can't pay Mastercard or Visa, you are merely bankrupt; if you can't pay your taxes, you go go to jail.

Peter F, it seems to me that you have no idea what unions are for. If you believe that unions defend ordinary employees against greedy, rapacious private corporations, then why are Canadian unions increasingly (solely) concentrated in the public sector? Are Canadian governments rapacious and greedy?

Or maybe, Peter F, the unions have a different agenda, nothing to do with protecting victims or the weak. Why are Canadian unions increasingly associated with the public sector? As Willie Sutton famously said, "That's where the money is."

Edited June 22, 2009 by August1991