Unions in Canada

[jdobbin]

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

I haven't seen any numbers from him or you on this.

As he points out, the vast majority of women working are in the private sector where there are few unions.

[Craig1]

I worked for the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) which has approx. 165,000 members. In the 80s the feds suspended collective bargaining for federal workers. In it's budget, the PSAC had set aside $2M to cover 3 years of their collective bargaining activities. Of course, those funds were part of the dues paid by the union's membership. Since no collective bargaining was to take place, a decision had to be made what to do with the $2M. You'd think the PSAC would have returned the unused money to the members. No. The PSAC national board of directors decided to allocate the whole pot in campaigns for and against specific federal politicians in the upcoming election campaign.

The PSAC consistently uses members' dues for political activism. Here's an example from the October 2008 election.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:y1nhOZ...lient=firefox-a

If the PSAC stuck to its core responsibilities as a bargaining agent, union dues could be slashed in half. Of course, that would mean only half of the elected officers and staff would be required to operate.

What is so wrong about that? corperations make donations all the time in its best interest for itself and its employees

wise words of business agent Tom Smyth "if you don't like it, you can always say goodbye"

[Riverwind]

Since when is it the unions job to do the job of management?

It is the unions who demand no contracting out provisions. They interfer with the process.

Whereever did you get the cockamamy idea that they do?

So what is stopping the government from firing the all of the union trash collectors and hiring private contractors?

You can't have it both ways. If the union does not want to be held responsible for 'management' decisions then it should stop trying prevent the management from doing their job.

[Oleg Bach]

It is the unions who demand no contracting out provisions. They interfer with the process.

So what is stopping the government from firing the all of the union trash collectors and hiring private contractors?

You can't have it both ways. If the union does not want to be held responsible for 'management' decisions then it should stop trying prevent the management from doing their job.

Watching them scream by on Queen east at 2 in the morning being real efficient and hardworking -- how would you like to be the guy that wipes the ass and changes the diapers of humanity - a city loaded with human waste and the filth....these garbage men - who are they -----? They are like immigrant workers who go in and clean the shit off of your grandmothers ass in the old folks home -----should they work for less? Or should they be paid well for what you will not do?

[Craig1]

It is the unions who demand no contracting out provisions. They interfer with the process.

So what is stopping the government from firing the all of the union trash collectors and hiring private contractors?

You can't have it both ways. If the union does not want to be held responsible for 'management' decisions then it should stop trying prevent the management from doing their job.

That would end up costing you double you can't have the government and the union both in managment. Besides unions only source of income is from dues from its members so to pay another tier of managment would entitle members say in managment decisions like shareholder.

or you could just allow the Union to manage it all lol

[Oleg Bach]

Share holders? Yes - my figures might be off - but I heard that the banking of sick days by the trash collectors was about 22 million in value ----no wonder they don't want to hand over the shares they bought through the union.

[Riverwind]

That would end up costing you double you can't have the government and the union both in managment.

Problem is unions are given a monopoly on providing government services. This leads to abuse just like offering sole source contracts leads to abuse. Efficient use of taxpayer money requires that the people performing the services compete for the business.

Besides unions only source of income is from dues from its members so to pay another tier of managment would entitle members say in managment decisions like shareholder.

All it really takes is an end to all job protection and anti-outsourcing clauses. If the union can't offer a better deal than a seperate company then the workers are laid off and the activity is outsourced.

I am curious. Would you rather live in a system where you legally compelled to do all of your business with a single bank or do you think you should have the right to shop around and find the bank/credit union that gives you the best deal?

If you think you should be allowed to choose your bank then why shouldn't taxpayers have the same right when it comes to deciding who provides the services?

Edited June 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[Remiel]

Huge corporations are unions.

That is, of course, more or less what I was implying.

[Oleg Bach]

That is, of course, more or less what I was implying.

Just came to mind - yes you were implying that - strange how it's developed ---first corporations hated unions - then unions grew to have the power of corporations - and union busting is akin to hostile take overs..there is no more left or right issues.

[Craig1]

Problem is unions are given a monopoly on providing government services. This leads to abuse just like offering sole source contracts leads to abuse. Efficient use of taxpayer money requires that the people performing the services compete for the business.

All it really takes is an end to all job protection and anti-outsourcing clauses. If the union can't offer a better deal than a seperate company then the workers are laid off and the activity is outsourced.

I am curious. Would you rather live in a system where you legally compelled to do all of your business with a single bank or do you think you should have the right to shop around and find the bank/credit union that gives you the best deal?

If you think you should be allowed to choose your bank then why shouldn't taxpayers have the same right when it comes to deciding who provides the services?

In a perfect world where politicians are honest then it couuuuld work. But see politicians are not the most honest people they would be lining pockets and awarding contracts to there buddys. Or you could allow the individual to worry about his/her own garbage like the bank and what you find people are cheap and will start dumping in ditches or the river, you'll wake up and your yard is full of trash. We have these checks and balances for a reason because it is human nature to be dishonest.

[Michael Hardner]

Riverwind, you should read the posts of tango and Peter F again.

It has already been pointed out that the workers don't organize the work. I know that the federal government outsources some computer work to contractors who charge by the hour. I would bet that the results aren't any better, because management is in a constant state of (useless) change.

The entire organization needs to be broken off from being directed by people who stand up during Question Period, IMO.

[Oleg Bach]

In a perfect world you would not have politicians having to lie- on behalf of some unelected faceless person that they owe their power too. You will see more and more unions collapse as the war on the union continues - this conflict is a battle between establishment - and those that hope to upsurp the establishment ---unions are getting to the point of rivaling major corporations - and union leaders are challenging the heads of corporations - so it a corporate war ------------and we are going to get caught in the cross fire -------wait till the rats start to crawl over the garbage in the streets - public sympathy will disolve for the unions - and the big corporations will use union hate to destroy the upstarts --- it's like the final solution - we are about to witness the holocausting of unionism.

[Riverwind]

It has already been pointed out that the workers don't organize the work.

I don't see what is so hard to understand about "the unions prevent managers from outsourcing work through job guarantees and contract restrictions". The fact that it is possible to outsource some services does not alter that.

Gordon Campbell had a big show down with the health unions in BC over this issue.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't see what is so hard to understand about "the unions prevent managers from outsourcing work through job guarantees and contract restrictions". The fact that it is possible to outsource some services does not alter that.

Gordon Campbell had a big show down with the health unions in BC over this issue.

Yes, rw.

The problem, though, is that projects and operations are under a constant storm of change, mostly from political yanking and pulling. See tango's original post on this thread for a description.

I have worked for and done business with government agencies and the workers are only pawns in the Publicity game that is played by the politicians. They run multi-billion dollar service agencies so that they look good, period.

Whether a unionized worker or a contracted-out worker does that is beyond the point. I expect that the low turnover that union wages and benefit guarantee are one of the few things that keep the system together at all.

[Oleg Bach]

We have unions of very unskilled immigrant workers who operate as cleaning staff in hospitals. They are well paid. Yet patients contract infections and die...I remember the day if a person worked in a hospital as a cleaner - they did a good job - because it was important - and if they did not do a good job they were reprimanded untill they did. Unions reprimand their own- It's like police investigating themselves.

[capricorn]

The entire organization needs to be broken off from being directed by people who stand up during Question Period, IMO.

If by entire organization you mean the public service, it could never be completely separated from the politicians. The two cannot operate independently.

Writing in 1976, Kenneth Kernaghan outlined a model of political neutrality in a parliamentary system of government in the following way:

* Politics and policy are separated from administration. Thus, politicians make policy decisions; public servants execute these decisions.

* Public servants are appointed and promoted on the basis of merit, rather than on the basis of party affiliation or contributions.

* Public servants do not engage in partisan political activities.

* Public servants do not publicly express their personal views on government policies or administration.

* Public servants provide forthright and objective advice to their political masters in private and in confidence. In return, political executives protect the anonymity of public servants by publicly accepting responsibility for departmental decisions.

* Public servants execute policy decisions loyally and zealously, irrespective of the philosophy and programs of the party in power and regardless of their personal opinions. As a result, public servants enjoy security of tenure during good behaviour and satisfactory performance.

This list represents the theory – the ideal – of a politically impartial public service and provides a framework for assessing the non-partisanship of the public service. As Kernaghan admits, however, theory and practice often diverge. In reality, this model of political neutrality has rarely been practised in its "pure" form. Although some tenets of the model, such as public service appointments and promotions based on merit, remain more or less an element of Canada’s public service, Kernaghan suggests that "some of the requisite conditions have never been met [...] and others have been altered to keep pace with changing political, social and technological circumstances".

Take, for example, the separation of politics and policy. In theory, ministers make policy decisions and public servants implement these decisions. This notion of such a clear separation is extreme and is meant to highlight the roles and responsibilities of the minister and the public service. In reality, administration is more complicated than that. Policy and program ideas come from a variety of sources, such as the public, Parliament and legislation. Public servants provide advice and recommendations on which the minister bases his or her decision. In making these recommendations, public servants consider a wide variety of factors, which may include political sensitivities. Consideration of political sensitivities is one of a public servant’s professional and democratic responsibilities and should not be seen as a political action. Although ministers ultimately make the decisions that public servants implement, politics and policy are not, and may never have been, separate from administration. An impartial public service ensures that policies are implemented regardless of the political views of public servants.

This model of political neutrality also asserts that the public service is expected to be both loyal and responsive to the government of the day. As noted above, the idea of responsiveness and loyalty is complex. The public service must ensure that it provides fair and honest advice to ministers, while also implementing decisions of the minister and the government of the day, even when such directions contradict policy advice given to the minister.

http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/plcy-pltq/rprt/im...apitre6-eng.htm

Direct political influence and patronage is at the most senior levels, i.e. Directors General and Deputy Ministers, and heads of agencies and crown corporations. It is at those levels that a change in government invariably brings personnel changes. Since those new appointees don't necessarily know the political leanings of their subordinates, no personnel changes will be made unless there is an out and out conflict around policy. Even then, middle and lower level staff are almost never affected. Hence, the bureaucracy is left pretty well to itself to play internal games of who gets the plum positions and who gets left behind.

[Craig1]

We have unions of very unskilled immigrant workers who operate as cleaning staff in hospitals. They are well paid. Yet patients contract infections and die...I remember the day if a person worked in a hospital as a cleaner - they did a good job - because it was important - and if they did not do a good job they were reprimanded untill they did. Unions reprimand their own- It's like police investigating themselves.

I don't know what union that is but do know the "code of excellence" where the union will pull you off the job and place you infront of the executive board where on 1st offence they place you in schooling till you grasp the skills to do your job. 2nd infraction your kicked out of the union and a $10,000 fine is placed on your head.

[Michael Hardner]

Thanks, capricorn. I agree that total independence is impossible, however some improvement would be easy to achieve.

The fact that the tome you reference is 33 years old probably indicates that no one has been considering alternate models of organization recently.

A government who tried to improve this has the potential to reap great rewards in the eyes of the public, especially because improvement couldn't be that hard to achieve at this point.

[Craig1]

Thanks, capricorn. I agree that total independence is impossible, however some improvement would be easy to achieve.

The fact that the tome you reference is 33 years old probably indicates that no one has been considering alternate models of organization recently.

A government who tried to improve this has the potential to reap great rewards in the eyes of the public, especially because improvement couldn't be that hard to achieve at this point.

We tried this in Alberta (still are) we offer bonuses to those who make cost cutts (to do their job like they should) and it's not working they hire more and cost the taqxpayer more richest province going into debt, our healthcare is on verge of privatization and taxes keep going up exceeding inflation.

[Peter F]

It is the unions who demand no contracting out provisions. They interfer with the process.

Of course they demand such things. Why wouldn't they? I demand to be paid a zillion dollars and hour too. Do you think managers are a bunch of helpless infants or what?

So what is stopping the government from firing the all of the union trash collectors and hiring private contractors?

Collective agreements. To fire someone bosses need cause. However government has legislation available to over-ride contracts...so nothing is stopping govt from sacking everybody and contracting out.

You can't have it both ways. If the union does not want to be held responsible for 'management' decisions then it should stop trying prevent the management from doing their job.

Who's stopping management from managing? Nobody.

[Riverwind]

Of course they demand such things. Why wouldn't they? I demand to be paid a zillion dollars and hour too. Do you think managers are a bunch of helpless infants or what?

There is a word to describe people with attitudes like you and it is not flattering. Such attitudes inevitably lead to confrontation.

Who's stopping management from managing? Nobody.

The union uses its monopoly of public services to hold the taxpayer hostage. We should allow replacement workers and jail the union leadership if anyone tries to stop the necessary work from being carried out.

[Remiel]

There is a word to describe people with attitudes like you and it is not flattering.

CEO?

We should ... jail the union leadership if anyone tries to stop the necessary work from being carried out.

Because, you know, that would not be an abuse of power or a violation of anyones rights at all.

[Muddy]

I think things are out of whack when a garbage man working for you and I make as much money as a qualified mechanic or plumber in the private sector. One is just a warm body who does not have a lot of responsibility or thinking required and no education qualifications. Where qualified tradesmen have to have high school and serve an apprenticeship and in the cases of mechanics have to buy their own tools and as of yet can not write them off. Too long has all levels of government been blackmailed into giving these militant unions who have no regard for real working people ,give into their outrageous demands. Unions are like organized crime. They call the shots. If you don`t believe me then try crossing a picket line to enter a public building. They will take away your right of movement and just may do you bodily harm. I know ,I have had that experience. .

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Unions are here until they choose to leave, period. Their existence is sanctioned by law. Get over it!

There is a way to deal with unions, just like everybody else, treat them with respect. Employee relations is an exercise in politics and economics. That is the problem that management, whether it be private or public sector has to deal with. Unions are not the problem, they are an answer to bad administration. The down side is that usually once they get in the door, they don't leave, just like a bad house guest. They function to protect the employees, the same employees that made a democratic decision to organize and elect representatives to deal with management.

If people would simply wake up and realize that unions are partisan factions just like a political party, then the size and scope of the problem would become apparent to them. Its not that complicated when you take the time to actually think it through. Unions are small scale politics, dealing with a small scale specific group of individuals. The scale depends on the size of the employers, and the scope is limited to the workplace. Of course there are mitigating circumstance with implications that can have impact outside of the scope of the unions, but that is not the purview of the unions. They can only focus on their own little corner of the world. It is management that has to deal with the consequences of their business and operation. Holding the workers responsible for how management does its job is exactly what folks on this forum are talking about. They are putting the cart before the horse.

Once again, unions were and are a response to employee relations. A organization that treats its employees well will likely not organize a union, one that treats its employees badly probably will. All the spin in the world cannot change that fact. Blaming unions or claiming they are holding anyone to ransom is simply foolish.

[Smallc]

Still ruining my upcoming vacation.