Unions in Canada

[Topaz]

Corporations and government will get rid of the unions and then you'll have your managment and non-union worker making not enough to buy the big ticket items or have the labour laws that do for more to the companies than the workers. When this is all done, you won't see you tax $$ lowered because the government will always need your money.

[benny]

Corporations and government will get rid of the unions and then you'll have your managment and non-union worker making not enough to buy the big ticket items or have the labour laws that do for more to the companies than the workers. When this is all done, you won't see you tax $$ lowered because the government will always need your money.

The government will need money to deal with workers' unrests.

[Cuzzin E]

Corporations and government will get rid of the unions and then you'll have your managment and non-union worker making not enough to buy the big ticket items or have the labour laws that do for more to the companies than the workers. When this is all done, you won't see you tax $$ lowered because the government will always need your money.

Exactly.

People who are quick to criticize the unions forget that many of the benefits we enjoy today (vacation, sick days, 40 hour work week, etc) are the direct result from the unions.

[benny]

People who are quick to criticize the unions forget that many of the benefits we enjoy today (vacation, sick days, 40 hour work week, etc) are the direct result from the unions.

I don't think it is simply about forgetting.

Edited August 20, 2009 by benny

[punked]

Exactly.

People who are quick to criticize the unions forget that many of the benefits we enjoy today (vacation, sick days, 40 hour work week, etc) are the direct result from the unions.

I think the big thing people are quick to forget is that as union membership has dropped over the last 20 years the lower class has grown the middle class has shrunk, and the upper class has stayed the same but has a lot more money.

[benny]

I think the big thing people are quick to forget is that as union membership has dropped over the last 20 years the lower class has grown the middle class has shrunk, and the upper class has stayed the same but has a lot more money.

I don't think it is simply about short-term memory failure.

[punked]

I don't think it is simply about short-term memory failure.

I agree it is about those who are on top telling those who are on bottom "it could be a lot worse" and the rest of us not saying "it could be a lot better."

[benny]

I agree it is about those who are on top telling those who are on bottom "it could be a lot worse" and the rest of us not saying "it could be a lot better."

I think it is about "worse" and "better" being reduced ideologically only to a taxation-related meaning.

[Renegade]

Corporations and government will get rid of the unions

Corporations have a vested interest in getting rid of unions as unions are an obstacle to productivity and efficiency. Government is only interested in getting re-elected. If the population is better served by removing unions then the government is incented to get rid of unions. The population has multiple roles (such as taxpayer, consumer in addition to worker) which are affected by unions.

and then you'll have your managment and non-union worker making not enough to buy the big ticket items or have the labour laws that do for more to the companies than the workers.

This is an example of the false logic which seems to be propogated. There is some notion that compensating their workers richly, a company will be able to generate additional profit because the workers will be rich enough to buy a company's products. This is pure nonsense. The way a company can drive profit is by increasing revenue and lowering costs. Lowering costs implies getting more efficiencies from their workforce.

When this is all done, you won't see you tax $$ lowered because the government will always need your money.

On the public sector side one of the largest expenditures is in labour costs. Lowering lower costs mean that govenment can either lower taxes, pay down debt, or provide additional services. On the private sector side, both the shareholder and consumer will beneift from lowered labour costs.

[Renegade]

I think the big thing people are quick to forget is that as union membership has dropped over the last 20 years the lower class has grown the middle class has shrunk, and the upper class has stayed the same but has a lot more money.

It depends upon how you decide how to divide classes. The "lower class" of today is still richer than the "lower class" of yesterday, it might even be richer than the middle class of yesterday.

[Renegade]

I agree it is about those who are on top telling those who are on bottom "it could be a lot worse" and the rest of us not saying "it could be a lot better."

Actually it s about those on the bottom saying "I could be a lot better" and make themselves more valuable.

[benny]

It depends upon how you decide how to divide classes. The "lower class" of today is still richer than the "lower class" of yesterday, it might even be richer than the middle class of yesterday.

No, the poor are becoming a bit poorer, while the rich, much richer.

Edited August 20, 2009 by benny

[jbg]

troll

Llort

[crazykai]

My explanation for gender wage inequity is a combination of maternal responsiblities regardless on how dedicated a partner a woman has to support her. In addition, cultural feminism is weaker in the Canada than in Europe, where women are work more likely to be found in male dominated and well paid fields like Engineering. As a note, women in engineering schools tripled after the Ecole Polytechnique shootings, and then almost immediately returned back to previous levels. In Europe, men are often seen as more infeminite while women are more often on executive boards and in political positions.

Unions today has much to do today with lobbying through their political wing, the NDP in English Canada and Parti/Bloc Quebecois in Quebec. Many issues they overwhelmingly campaign claim to be part of broad social democratic platform but really serve their union campaign donors and volunteers at the expense of taxpayers. The best examples I can think of is "affordable housing" and "green collar jobs". "Affordable housing" programs are indirect kickbacks to construction unions which can dominate the labour force in some trades, and given the volitity of the construction industry, can quickly double or even triple their wages in a union with an economic upswing or taxpayer money. Why else do unionized electricans and plummbers with almost no education can make more than most professionals and why else is real estate is so volitle from one Canadian town to another from one upswing to another downswing in the past two decades. Meanwhile, low income people never see the benefits of these programs unless it is used as emergency shelter. Construction unions also can do many "Green" projects, like retrofitting and building hydro dams, with the same effect and I am not against helping the environment, making essential infrastructure or being more energy efficient. What I have problem with is government money funneled into unions made up of high school drop outs making $78 an hour once benefits are included to make a gas guzzling SUV nobody wants to buy but wait, it's a "Green collar job" because it has a slight improvement in fuel economy from the previous model. Hey, Jack, I thought you were a social democrat? Too busy fighting for "working families" with 10 weeks paid vacation and "social justice" increase the wages of people who make more than most people with less education and responsibilities than most people at the expense of everyone else.

[benny]

"Affordable housing" programs are indirect kickbacks to construction unions which can dominate the labour force in some trades, and given the volitity of the construction industry, can quickly double or even triple their wages in a union with an economic upswing or taxpayer money. Why else do unionized electricans and plummbers with almost no education can make more than most professionals

What you write here would have more chances to be true if there were no homeless persons and no shortage of electricians and plumbers.