"right To Work" Laws In Canada

[cgarrett]

sorry... but there is little that makes sense in your post.

"Not fair at all that they (union workers) should be earning twice as much as the non union worker..."

actually, look at the statistics. the disparity is about 12%. not 100%.

"The most successful countries in the future will have low taxation, low wages and high education"

well, then i say resist as long as possible! ha! and how are these people getting educations with no money?

no matter, if i'm going to have to be poor then i prefer to be uneducated...

"In essence, corporations manufacturing offshore utilizing lower labor costs have become the biggest cheerleaders for organized labour in our country."

what? are you sure about this?

stuff is not cheap in the united states or japan. and it never will be where people have loads of cash. the fact is that the price of goods is not directly tied to the cost of making a good in mature markets. will the price of goods drop somewhat as our standard of living drops? sure it will, but not because producers are saving money on labor... because they will be desperate to sell product to people who have no money to spend.

[Michael Hardner]

Goes without saying if there were no unions. But unions won't be disappearing. We need to find a way to eliminate, or at least reduce, the disparity between union and non union workers. Not fair at all that they should be earning twice as much as the non union worker and the non union worker has to pay the inflated prices for most goods and services [private sector] and taxes [public sector] which is a direct result of exorbitant wages and benefits for unionized workers. Is it fair that 25% of the workforce should have the power to harm society to this extent?

You're saying that in order to make the situation "fair", we should cut union wages to that of non-union ? Would you find it "fair" if somebody decreed that YOUR wages should drop for doing the same job you've been doing ?

As for harming society, the money that union members earn goes back into the economy in the form of spending.

Again I'd like to point out that lower wages are a problem for our economy.

We need to reduce the power and leverage of labour unions plain and simple. Because of the militancy of labour unions here in Canada we need to reduce their numbers to a manageable 10 to 12% of the workforce. Right to work laws would bring this about over a period of time and would be much fairer for everybody.

You have that backwards. The most successful countries in the future will have low taxation, low wages and high education.

As I've pointed out, 2/3 of the economy is consumer spending. Lower wages hurt the economy in this way.

And your constant use of the term "fair" isn't appropriate for this argument. Personally, I find any plan that creates a greater gap between rich and poor - as this one does - "unfair".

But let's you and I drop these value judgements in the interest of trying to make this an objective argument - agreed ?

I don't agree with your vision that union wage rates should be higher.

I didn't say that union wage rates should be higher.

You make reference to consumer spending. Isn't it far better that wage rates throughout the country be more equalized so that 100% of the population become consumers rather than increasing union wage rates further in order that 25% of the population can continue to be consumers?

100% of the country IS consumers. But by decreasing the buying power of 25% of the population, you're making a significant dent in consumer spending.

Of course, everyone needs to buy food, clothing and so forth but the economy is also built on discretionary spending on things such as cars, electronics, and furniture.

If union wages were brought down to the level of non union wages then it goes without saying that all prices and taxes would drop accordingly.

Prices would probably drop, yes. In fact, prices have been quite flat recently as producers compete for the diminishing wages of the earner. We're buying cheaper goods made in places like China. Things are very good for the consumer right now, but I don't think you can say the same for those employed in producing these goods.

Would taxes really drop ? Those who earn less would pay less in income taxes. The reduced payroll earnings would go to a corporation that pays a corporate tax rate, gets write-offs, and other government perks. Less consumer spending generally means less tax revenue from sales taxes, etc.

So tax revenue would probably drop, IMO.

A poster on these boards recently stated that low-wage earners actually cost the government money, ie. the taxes they pay don't match the amount of money the government spends on them and their famlies.

I'll address this further -- A lot of the products we purchase today are now manufactured in lower wage jurisdictions. If Canada is producing the same product paying union wages and sells the product at a modest profit this then becomes the market price for the product. This is what enables these corporations to max out their profit when the manufacturing takes place in lower wage jurisdictions. As you can see, if Canada discontinued the manufacture of these same products utilizing unionized labour, then the higher market price would disappear and that would benefit everybody in the country.

This seems to be a restatement of what you already wrote.

My main argument has been that consumer spending will suffer and you haven't really gone after this argument so much.

I challenge anyone to refute this. In essence, corporations manufacturing offshore utilizing lower labour costs have become the biggest cheerleaders for organized labour in our country. I challenge anyone to refute that as well.

What do you mean they have become the biggest cheerleaders for organized labour ? You stated that they're using offshore labour - doesn't that mean they're NOT cheerleaders for organized labour ?

[BigGunner]

So-called "right to work" legislation exists in some of the most conservative regions in America due to an extreme hatred of unions that is linked to McCarthyism of the 1950's.

At less than 25% of the workforce, I'd hardly call unions a monopoly of the workforce.

Union labour and the wages they receive are a bargaining chip for non-union employees. It gives them something to strive for - asking for a raise that comes close to the union wage. Union wages apply upward pressure on non-union wages by pressuring non-union employers to keep the pace or lose their skilled workers to the union shop.

Lowering wages of union workers by legislatively smashing the union organisation will affect more than the workers themselves. Disposable income by middle class workers will evaporate and create a Wal-Mart economy. There will be no more small business.

Right to work laws have little to do with politicians' "care" for the working stiff. It should be noted that in many of the US states that have right-to-work laws are the most victimized when it comes to foreign outsourcing of decent paying (union and non-union) jobs. The only way these workers could compete would be to drop their $12-14/h wage to $1.50/h like India or Indonesia (if they get that much). What then do you think will happen to small and medium business?

Higher paid union and middle class workers also pay most of the taxes in this country. Lowering their wages by force will shut down small business, and cause massive budget shortfalls - Look at America's problem.

[Hjalmar]

Some of the positives about a global economy

[1] It will force labour unions to work for wages that are

competitive worldwide.

[2] It will force a lowering of prices for most products that we in Canada, the USA and Western Europe require for basic survival.

[3] It will, over time, tend to improve living standards in many of the poorer regions of the world as wages gravitate upward to lessen the spread between wealthy countries and Third World countries.

[4] It will not lower living standards for people living in Canada, the USA and Western Europe except for people that rely on income derived from union employment.. This is a positive and will help more people than it harms.

[5] It will, for the first time in history, force governments to compete with one another from a tax standpoint. Any country that fails to do so will lose their most talented and desireable citizens.

[BigGunner]

You are free to believe in this utopian capitalist philosophy if you choose. You are also free to believe in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, Santa Claus, and the Great Pumpkin too.

A lie, repeated often enough, still does not make it the truth.

What you talk about is a global kind of trickle-down economics. That theory is a lie - it does not work. It never has worked. Its an agenda that was attempted by Ronald Reagan, Margarette Thatcher, Gordon Campbell, and now George Bush and it has failed each time. The theory is a self centred concept that says that by rewarding the wealthy with tax breaks (and lowering the spending power of 'classes' below them) the wealthy will automatically invest and create jobs for the masses.

Bullsh*t. They took their money and ran. They invested it offshore, out of the tax jurisdiction of the nation, and it was pulled out of the economy. The ret result each time was massive deficits and a ruined economy.

But those in the conservative camp refuse to accept blame for your own mistakes and attempt to blame the unions. Unions wouldn't exist if companies treated their workers with respect and dignity and paid a fair wage.

America has been outsourcing jobs at a painful rate now. These aren't the $30/h union jobs (although enough of them have been exported) these are the non-union jobs of the mid-west that hover around $12-14 (US$) per hour. Hardly the 'big money', but not bad either.

Tell me...who the hell benifits when you take the ability of a family to feed itself away?

The practice is wrong and immoral.

[Michael Hardner]

Hjalmar:

Again in this thread, my refutations to your last post are hanging there. I'm content to leave it at that if you are.

Some of the positives about a global economy

[1] It will force labour unions to work for wages that are

competitive worldwide.

[2] It will force a lowering of prices for most products that we in Canada, the USA and Western Europe require for basic survival.

[3] It will, over time, tend to improve living standards in many of the poorer regions of the world as wages gravitate upward to lessen the spread between wealthy countries and Third World countries.

[4] It will not lower living standards for people living in Canada, the USA and Western Europe except for people that rely on income derived from union employment.. This is a positive and will help more people than it harms.

[5] It will, for the first time in history, force governments to compete with one another from a tax standpoint. Any country that fails to do so will lose their most talented and desireable citizens.

I agree with points 2 and 3. You seem to have some personal grudge against the unions, as far as I can tell, since you just want union workers to make less money even if it reduces consumer spending.

I think Globalization is inevitable, but the government needs to be careful to balance the new powers of producers to reduce costs, with their responsibilities to keep up infrastructure and make the economy work for everyone.

[Hjalmar]

Michael Hardner

What do you mean they have become the biggest cheerleaders for organized labour ? You stated that they're using offshore labour - doesn't that mean they're NOT cheerleaders for organized labour ?

They are using offshore labour which dramatically reduces their costs, and then selling in Canada. If no Canadian corporation utilizing unionized labour were manufacturing these same products here in Canada, which establishes the market price, then these market prices would drop dramatically. These same large corporations are the cheerleaders for labour unions here in Canada -- that's what I meant.

[Hjalmar]

Michael Hardner

100% of the country IS consumers. But by decreasing the buying power of 25% of the population, you're making a significant dent in consumer spending.

Not really when you consider that by decreasing union wages prices for most products would drop somewhat thereby increasing the buying power of all the people that are not affiliated with labour unions. The effect would more likely be positive than negative when you consider the numbers involved.

This seems to be a restatement of what you already said.

Glad to hear that you're following this thread.

[Hjalmar]

Michael Hardner

I find any plan that creates a greater gap between rich and poor - as this one does - "unfair".

That will be a fact of life in the years ahead as wages will become far more attuned to the value of the work being performed than it has in the past. This is guaranteed to widen the gap between rich and poor. I see that a much fairer system when workers rewards are more related to the value of the work they do rather than the present where [in union lingo] a body is a body and everyone deserves the same rate of pay. Certainly more fair to the employer as well.

I agree with points 2 and 3.

You don't agree with #4? Our living standards are quite good in this country. Why would you be against improving the living standards of others that may not fare as well? And how about #1 and #5?

Sorry M H, I could have done all of this in one posting but when the quotes are on the previous page you can only copy and paste one at a time. You lose the posting box when you go back to the previous page.

[playfullfellow]

There are a lot of good arguments from both parties on the subject of unions in this country. Unions definately have had their place in history and I think that they will continue to be a part of our future. I think a lot of people frustrations with unions is that they seem to have oodles of power and can keep incompetent people from getting replaced. How often have we read or heard of employees gettin caught stealing or not doing their job at all but can not be replaced because they are a union member. I think if the work ethic in general improved, then work efficiency will improve which means profit increases and then worker shares of the pie can increase. I am a non-union labourer (yes one of these people who are in short supply) and I know very well that I will be looking for a new job. I also know that if I improve effciency, my boss makes more money and I in turn make more money. If my boss does not make a profit, then why should I be able to demand more money? I fI do not keep costs down and efficiency up, why should I be rewarded for that? I also have to be very diversified in my abilities and my wages reflect this. In all honesty, I do not see how a union would benefit me in my current job. I am very capable of negotiating my own terms that will benefit both myself and my employer. I know this is not possible with large corporations. To end, I think if people still had to take responsibility for thei actions at work and possibly lose their jobs with out union intervention, then unions would be much more accepted in the general public.

[Hjalmar]

"The right of the strikers to their jobs is not valid against other workers who are in grave need.... For example, if the latter can not without great difficulty find employment elsewhere, they will offend neither against charity nor justice when they take the places of the former; for they, no less than the strikers, have a right to seek and obtain a livelihood on reasonable terms... Both classes of workers are contending for advantages that both have

a right to pursue, and their respective rights must be interpreted and determined by reference to their respective conditions and needs."

"While the unions are a necessity of our present industrial system, they are nevertheless, both in spirit and in many of their methods, a necessary evil.... They are too often

established and maintained on the theory or conviction that the competition between employer and employee is a veritable warfare, in which each is at liberty to strive for all that he can possibly secure, and in which the victory is always to the stronger force."

Geez!!!!!! The employer has invested perhaps $10 million while the union workers have invested zilch..... And they're striving to become the stronger force!!!!!!! Go figure!!!!!!!! Something very wrong with our labor laws.

[Michael Hardner]

That will be a fact of life in the years ahead as wages will become far more attuned to the value of the work being performed than it has in the past. This is guaranteed to widen the gap between rich and poor. I see that a much fairer system when workers rewards are more related to the value of the work they do rather than the present where [in union lingo] a body is a body and everyone deserves the same rate of pay. Certainly more fair to the employer as well.

Well, we had such a system and it creates a society where more and more can't afford discretionary spending. And if it's already a fact of life, why do you think it's necessary to intervene to accelerate this happenstance ?

I would think that a government should be concerned about the decreased economic well-being of the people who do the work, ie. the people who work to produce goods and services.

[Hjalmar]

The trend

Unionization rate in the USA in the mid 50's was 53% and has steadily dropped to a level of 13% last year and still going down. What does that tell you about the value of labour unions in this day and age?

Germany, for example, has now become the largest exporter of jobs in the world. We all know about labour union strength in countries like Germany and Sweden.

Clearly, the writing is on the wall for labour unions worldwide. And that will benefit everybody except union members themselves. A win, win situation for the majority.

[Michael Hardner]

Unionization rate in the USA in the mid 50's was 53% and has steadily dropped to a level of 13% last year and still going down. What does that tell you about the value of labour unions in this day and age?

Nothing at all. By your own account, personal responsibility is also on the wane. Does that mean it, too, has less value ?

Germany, for example, has now become the largest exporter of jobs in the world. We all know about labour union strength in countries like Germany and Sweden.

Clearly, the writing is on the wall for labour unions worldwide. And that will benefit everybody except union members themselves. A win, win situation for the majority.

You're showing a stunning ability to ignore what I have posted about decreased wages. I'm not sure if it's worth continuing this discussion.

[Hjalmar]

Michael Hardner

Nothing at all. By your own account, personal responsibility is also on the wane. Does that mean it, too, has less value ?

I don't think personal responsibility is on the wane today as it has over the past 35 years. As union strength tapers of so also will personal responsibility resurface again.

You're showing a stunning ability to ignore what I have posted about decreased wages. I'm not sure if it's worth continuing this discussion

I have nothing to say about decreasing wages. It's the way of the future and is bound to happen. And it will happen in lock step with diminishing unionization.

[Michael Hardner]

I have nothing to say about decreasing wages. It's the way of the future and is bound to happen. And it will happen in lock step with diminishing unionization.

You mean nothing further to say ? You've already said a lot. If it's bound to happen, then as I've said there shouldn't be a need to accelerate it.

Okay, we've argued this one out...

[RB]

we are looking for a happy medium so my answer is better design of public policy and better design of labor laws

in canada it is by far easier to unionise that the US and of course the law gives autonomy to unions

maybe if we have have such a law that ensures a preamble in the contracts: e.g. here is what supercedes the union

but i do like socilaist protection especially in government because we are protected esp. in arbitrary dismissal but more for job security

.... will continue later

[Hjalmar]

RB

in Canada it is by far easier to unionize than the US and of course the law gives autonomy to unions

That is why Canada is lagging so far behind the USA when it comes to productivity. Unionization rate in the USA is down to 13% [from 53% in the mid 50"s] and Canada's unionization rate today is double that of the USA.

[Hjalmar]

Let's look at a typical hog farmer in todays market..... Each hog would stand him approximately $110 for feed, shelter, insurance etc..... Let's say he marketed perhaps 35 or 40 hogs per week at a loss of $52.00 each..... That amounts to a loss of approximately $2,000 per week.

Now let's look at the union worker in an affiliated industry such as a meat packing plant..... What would that same worker do if at the end of every day as he left the premises, he was met at the door by a burly man who demanded from him $150 for the day?

Not really a valid comparison is it?... No it isn't, because the meat plant worker hasn't invested a penny..... The farmer by contrast has thousands invested in his land, buildings, farm machinery etc.

Should the government, and taxpayers, be subsidizing the hog farmer?... Should workers in the same industry such as meat plants etc. be sharing some of these losses?

Has the time come to 'link' industries and all people connected, share in the losses accordingly?... Should future labor contracts be drawn up whereby wages are tied to the market? For example If the market is down in the auto industry and inventory starts to build up, should that trigger a lower wage scale?

[Michael Hardner]

Has the time come to 'link' industries and all people connected, share in the losses accordingly?... Should future labor contracts be drawn up whereby wages are tied to the market? For example If the market is down in the auto industry and inventory starts to build up, should that trigger a lower wage scale?

Amazingly, you're now advocating increased government intervention in the market. This is one of the hallmarks of socialism.

The government has a responsibility to make the business environment competitive, so that the economy may prosper. But at a certain point, propping up dying industries is a lost cause and it's in everyone's best interest to let that business die.

[RB]

well lets face it, talk of unions and this Canada starts portraying some flaccid emotions, in the US folks are emotionally charged and at least have people who buy into markets and free enterprise

well Canada, we care about people and protection. so the start with government …. very good environment for unions to foster growth and survive. the argument put forward already is that the government leadership can change and that the workers need a stable livelihood and some work security.

and the union, well, they are only happy to facilitate needs, so fix your wage discrepancies, minority..hows that? implement some pay inequality clause and by the way while we are at it add-on workplace protection rights, well face it so that you workers stay long term, we will give you 15% more wages… why lose good workers .. they already bought into the system and so on

Also from your prior arguments of unions and companies:

1) it is true, these companies have a lower market value when they are unionized

2) return on capital is much lower

3) companies are inclined to reduced R&D

4) rate of growth and productivity down

the connection is the usual suppose we:

- reduce the # of workers within government hence smaller union size and outsource or privatize services of government to maximize:

-efficient in the labor force

-hence productive

-hence investment

-hence advancement in areas of technology

-hence growth

no coincidence this bottom line = more revenues as in taxes for the government

[RB]

subsidy for agriculture i support because it makes economic sense

when sectors of industry are affected with regards to losses i think it is a social responsiblity of government to step in

- well it is unfair for employees of companies to be held responsible for uncontrollable market disasters.

furthermore, companies have to also take responsiblities of errors in forcasting demand and supply.

for wages i believe performace should be tied to wages, with band-widths and scales but agree that unions do try some hardball bargaining to the detriment of companies

[RB]

But at a certain point, propping up dying industries is a lost cause and it's in everyone's best interest to let that business die.

no kidding!

when business is dying we have contingincies in place you should contact the ministy of enterprise, opportunity and innovation to help you - thats why they exist

[Hjalmar]

Michael Hardner

But at a certain point, propping up dying industries is a lost cause and it's in everyone's best interest to let that business die.

I agree with that.. But farming is a little different because almost every farmer is in the same boat. And as you know farming is heavily subsidized. So what should be done? .. let all the farms die? How would that affect the country? And what about all the employees in related industries such as meat packing plants etc? I would support a system whereby all subsidies end and all employees in related industries share in losses with the farmers. Are you aware of the spread in prices the farmer gets at the gate and the price paid by the end user? It would absolutely shock you. Feature this-- A meat cutter earning over $20/hr with a locked in contract and nothing to lose because he/she has nothing invested. Then a small farmer with perhaps half a million invested [his lifes savings in most cases] and living from year to year on his annual profit which turns out to be a loss so often. Why wouldn't you support such a system too? If the farmer must bleed, so should everybody in any related industry... My opinion.

[Hjalmar]

RB

no coincidence this bottom line = more revenues as in taxes for the government

Outsourcing is the answer.. Bring down the unionization rate to a manageable 10% to 12% Will also enable governments to lower taxes.