Unions in Canada

[Peter F]

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

Oh, I get it: Management should never be confronted. Dream on.

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.

What ?!? You mean 'Back-to-work' legislation or designating people as 'essential workers'? There'd be a Revolution!

[Oleg Bach]

Oh, I get it: Management should never be confronted. Dream on.

What ?!? You mean 'Back-to-work' legislation or designating people as 'essential workers'? There'd be a Revolution!

If the corporations that run the nation had their way totally - they would consider anything that effects their bottom line in any way an eccential service. For instance - if say those that handle the money for welfare payments were to go on strike - I am sure that it would be called an eccential service and they would be legislated back - not because the powers that be love everyone so much and actually care for the poor -- BUT because with every welfare cheaque - the banks get their cut - about 20 dollars per person in bank service charges - the banks would not tolerate that - we are talking millions every month of free money for the banksters. Essential workers or "service" actually means any person or group that pays tribute to the banks..That would make us all eccential workers ----where is the love.. ?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The bar needs to be raised in terms of labour legislation. Things like the cost of living and inflation need to be discussed.

[Moonbox]

If the corporations that run the nation had their way totally - they would consider anything that effects their bottom line in any way an eccential service. For instance - if say those that handle the money for welfare payments were to go on strike - I am sure that it would be called an eccential service and they would be legislated back - not because the powers that be love everyone so much and actually care for the poor -- BUT because with every welfare cheaque - the banks get their cut - about 20 dollars per person in bank service charges - the banks would not tolerate that - we are talking millions every month of free money for the banksters. Essential workers or "service" actually means any person or group that pays tribute to the banks..That would make us all eccential workers ----where is the love.. ?

Oleg you have no idea what you're talking about, as usual. Just another pointless rant. Banks don't charge anything for welfare cheques. You can get that crap directly deposited electronically into your account.

[Oleg Bach]

Yah why is that--- a twenty dollar bill spends like a five - and a hundrend like a twenty..money is losing it's kick- and no one seems to notice or care.

[Pliny]

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

And what does all this mean for Canada?

Actually, it is just the manifestation of creeping socialism. More and more people will demand public sector jobs...er..careers. As for women increasingly dominating unions, the government has a policy that excludes the hiring of able white males so that would be a reflection of that policy.

[capricorn]

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.

The "tome" as you call it is not 33 years old. The research paper I linked is currently on the Public Service Commission website and contains references dated as recent as 2007.

"The Public Service Commission of Canada is an independent agency responsible for safeguarding the values of a professional Public Service: competence, non-partisanship and representativeness". That's their mandate. Impartiality is an issue continually studied at the PSC. Any improvement regarding an impartial public service would come through that agency.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Actually, it is just the manifestation of creeping socialism. More and more people will demand public sector jobs...er..careers. As for women increasingly dominating unions, the government has a policy that excludes the hiring of able white males so that would be a reflection of that policy.

The reason people want those public sector jobs is that they are deemed safe from the ravages of the free market economy.

[Oleg Bach]

Oleg you have no idea what you're talking about, as usual. Just another pointless rant. Banks don't charge anything for welfare cheques. You can get that crap directly deposited electronically into your account.

Yes and every month they ALWAYS manage to get some sort of payment..some sort of bizarre service charge for doing some digital non labour - I have done my research and observational evaluation of this system ---what I found astoudning after spending a week in the projects as a guest ( an how many of you have done that?) THAT heavy drug addiction and sales take place..banksters all have vested interest in big pharma -- I see a booming trade in synthetic opiates ---- the tax payer pays for the dope - sends it to the welfare creep - that creep in turn sells some of the product - meanwhile I saw almost no medical conditions that would warrant these prescribing of these drugs...so the tax payer pays - and big pharma gets the profits by using the poor and stupid to move product...it's an interconnected system my friend - and I am glad to have had the opportunity to research it by actually experiencing it...just like my five years in the courts...I got a great over view - and understood the big picture - I just might retire from the welfare job - it does not pay enough...Yes _ I treated it like a very low paying job..the feds took 100% of my pay cheques - So I simply took the money back---I am a very patient man.

[Moonbox]

Oh, I get it: Management should never be confronted. Dream on.

Management should be confronted, if somehow the public sector was being treated unfairly as compared to the private sector. If not, the union can screw itself. I'm sorry, but I don't think garbage truck and bus drivers are particularly skilled or trained and as such they should earn what an unskilled and uneducated grunt is worth.

What ?!? You mean 'Back-to-work' legislation or designating people as 'essential workers'? There'd be a Revolution!

Yeah. I'm sure that would go over well considering how little support public sector unions have amongst the populations. Take Toronto as an example. 24,000 people on strike in a city of millions, most of whom are angry at the striking workers. Revolution?

[Moonbox]

What on earth are you talking about? You make less and less sense every day. If you're going to respond, try to make sense. Your rantings are pure nonsense. Explain the connections, don't just blabber on about stuff.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Moonbox

[Bonam]

Has he ever made sense?

[Oleg Bach]

Bottom line - poplations are being ground into the ground to see how much abuse they can take - in order to set up some sort of new more efficient order....we are in the experimental stage...I was onced called the canary in the gold mind --- a benchmark to be used on how little can you invest to get the max out of an investment - it's the milking and juice squeezing out of the populace....don't worry folks - this is a test - you will survive - consumerism and waste management go hand in hand - we shit more than we produce.

[Peter F]

If not, the union can screw itself. I'm sorry, but I don't think garbage truck and bus drivers are particularly skilled or trained and as such they should earn what an unskilled and uneducated grunt is worth.

Fine. I have no problem with. Offer these unskilled uneducated grunts the paltry sum you think their worth. Who's stopping you?

Yeah. I'm sure that would go over well considering how little support public sector unions have amongst the populations. Take Toronto as an example. 24,000 people on strike in a city of millions, most of whom are angry at the striking workers. Revolution?

Hey, take it up with Riverwind. He says we should jail/sack union folk for not doing their jobs. Seems he doesn't realize that gubamit already have the legal power to do so and have done so and no revolutions. He thinks he's advocatings something new and wild and well outofthebox...but he isnt.

[Renegade]

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?

Who's stopping management from managing? Nobody.

Peter, you seem to acknowldege that workers in general would make outrageous demands. You also assume that managent should decline those demands if demed outrageous. The point that other posters are making is that given that management has not refused those demands, it is rational to conclude that management doesn't have the power or incentive to refuse. This is really what needs to be addresssed

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.

Actually what is required is more than overriding the contracts. Government has the power to and should change the rules of the game as it is one-sided in favour of the unions. The question is do they have the incentive and will to do so or is it easier to capituate to the demands of the union?

[Renegade]

Duplicate Post.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Renegade

[Peter F]

Peter, you seem to acknowldege that workers in general would make outrageous demands. You also assume that managent should decline those demands if demed outrageous. The point that other posters are making is that given that management has not refused those demands, it is rational to conclude that management doesn't have the power or incentive to refuse. This is really what needs to be addresssed

I would agree with you if I accepted that union demands are outrageous. I want a zillion dollars/hour and banked sick time: Am I going to get it? Not likely. Why not? because management will indeed refuse my demands.

The garbage collectors of Toronto may or may not be going on strike. They may be going on strike because management refused the unions demands. So, the point that other posters are making about management not refusing demands is very obviously false. Therefore it is irrational to conclude that management doesnt have the power or incentive to refuse because management clearly does have the power (and I assume incentive) to refuse demands.

There is no need to address management lack of power when they have power coming out the yin-yang. The one and only thing unions can do is withhold labour and appeal to the courts. Thats IT.

Actually what is required is more than overriding the contracts. Government has the power to and should change the rules of the game as it is one-sided in favour of the unions. The question is do they have the incentive and will to do so or is it easier to capituate to the demands of the union?

See Bill C-10 for an example of Union POWER!

Bill C-10 part 10.

[g_bambino]

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.

But, that's just it: unions have mostly outlived their purpose. Now that the labour laws are in place, the union leaders have nothing left to do but push for ever more pay, bonuses, and perks, well beyond the non-unionized average. They perhaps shouldn't be outlawed, but the power of unions should now be seriously curtailed.

[August1991]

Irony abounds on this thread.

Politicians and politics are the worst managers of the organizations that provide our services. To them "management" is 100% about knee-jerk reactions. As such, working for these organizations can be the most demoralizing waste of time there is.

I have written here before about spinning government service off into service depots with a multi-party board-of-directors at arm's length from day-to-day politics. This would work something like a crown corp, but my hope would be that conservative presence on the board would help make the organizations a little more cost-conscious. ( They're good like that. )

Michael, it seems odd that you point the finger at bad public sector management in a thread about how unions dominate and increasingly exist solely in the public sector.

In effect, Michael, you are proposing what union activists call "out-sourcing" or PPP. The post office successfully used this tactic to avoid its unions but then the post office also faced a much lower cost competitor in the Internet. (In this regard, the story of GM is not unlike the story of the post office.)

To make my point more specific Micahel, it is impossible to reform the public education system in Canada in any meaningful way without reference to school teacher unions. They in effect control now our education system. It is naive to believe otherwise.

Governments require unionized employee's. It makes things soooooo much easier. Surely you don't believe that each government employee should negotiate their own contract? And then expect Treasury Board to control employment costs?

WTF? Civil servants have existed since confederation but public sector unions are a relatively recent phenomenon. Senior civil servants are not unionized, Treasury Board employees are not members of the public sector unions. RCMP officers have no union.

There is no obvious reason that government employees should be unionized and indeed there is ample reason to believe that they should not be unionized. We the public employ these people and it is a sacred trust.

In fact, before 1970, the civil service was considered public service and the idea of a union would have been anathema. Then, in the 1960s, unions became fashionable and "progressive". I think Trudeau wanted to create counterweights or some such.

Nowadays, we are saddled not only with public sector unions who organize everything (absolutely everything) according to seniority, but these public sector unions are the most militant of allunions. For the past 30 years or so, no Canadian politician (excepting perhaps Rene Levesque and Mike Harris) has had the courage to take on these public sector unions.

The difference between me and you is you think money motivates everything and I dont.

What irony. Peter F, in a thread in which you defend public sector unions who want more money, you claim that I am the greedy one only motivated by money.

Sure.

I have always found amusing Leftists who denounce the profit motive and greedy capitalists who then turn and insist that governments give more money to Leftist so-called "progressive" causes.

-----

This thread is filled with irony and misunderstanding. For example, I sense that many posters (and Canadians) view unions as defenders of the oppressed, little guy. To oppose unions is like opposing pensioners or a Human Rights Tribunal. Who is against human rights?

The fact is that unions in Canada are largely and increasingly defending public sector employees against taxpayers. Unions no longer defend ordinary naive employees against big, greedy corporations. This stereotype is long gone.

Edited June 23, 2009 by August1991

[Peter F]

WTF? Civil servants have existed since confederation but public sector unions are a relatively recent phenomenon. Senior civil servants are not unionized, Treasury Board employees are not members of the public sector unions. RCMP officers have no union.

There is no obvious reason that government employees should be unionized and indeed there is ample reason to believe that they should not be unionized. We the public employ these people and it is a sacred trust.

In fact, before 1970, the civil service was considered public service and the idea of a union would have been anathema. Then, in the 1960s, unions became fashionable and "progressive". I think Trudeau wanted to create counterweights or some such.

Getting rid of public sector unions is very easy to do. Enact legislation to that effect. Nuthin to it. Am I required to say its a grand idea or something? I think it would suck. You think different. Thus politics. No one can stop the government from disbanding unions, least of all unions or me.

Nowadays, we are saddled not only with public sector unions who organize everything (absolutely everything) according to seniority,

Bullshit.

but these public sector unions are the most militant of allunions. For the past 30 years or so, no Canadian politician (excepting perhaps Rene Levesque and Mike Harris) has had the courage to take on these public sector unions.

Why is that August? What is it that politicians fear and why is it wrong for them to fear it?

What irony. Peter F, in a thread in which you defend public sector unions who want more money, you claim that I am the greedy one only motivated by money.

Unions want far more than money, August. far more. They want decent working hours and conditions and lots of time off and pensions and medical plans and most of all, to be treated by managers as human beings and not as cattle or serfs.

I suggest you take a little time to review Jerry Fortins posts.

Bad Management makes for Strong Unions.

I have always found amusing Leftists who denounce the profit motive and greedy capitalists who then turn and insist that governments give more money to Leftist so-called "progressive" causes.

And I am always amused by capitalists who claim that the wellbeing of the worker is very high on thier list of priorities and then sell thier workers down the river for a buck.

But I understand Capitalists only need be concerned about profit. The uneducated and unskilled masses deserve nothing from capitalists. They can be easily replaced should they ever realize they are not as powerless as the bosses continually tell them they are.

The fact is that unions in Canada are largely and increasingly defending public sector employees against taxpayers. Unions no longer defend ordinary naive employees against big, greedy corporations. This stereotype is long gone.

Then they will fade away and you need not worry.

[Renegade]

I would agree with you if I accepted that union demands are outrageous. I want a zillion dollars/hour and banked sick time: Am I going to get it? Not likely. Why not? because management will indeed refuse my demands.

The garbage collectors of Toronto may or may not be going on strike. They may be going on strike because management refused the unions demands. So, the point that other posters are making about management not refusing demands is very obviously false. Therefore it is irrational to conclude that management doesnt have the power or incentive to refuse because management clearly does have the power (and I assume incentive) to refuse demands.

There is no need to address management lack of power when they have power coming out the yin-yang.

The reason that managment won't give you a zillion dollars/hour is because they cannot. It is beyond their power of taxation. A union can make outrageous demands and while they will not always get them they stand a better chance than a private uniion because they have the balance of power. IOW, a politician has few choices: He can accept the union demands, he can refuse and let them strike and thus impact his constitutients, he can legislate them back to work. It is not always the same polititican who has the power to legislitate as the one negotiatating with the union. The government should have more options. Such as being able to hire alternate labour.

The one and only thing unions can do is withhold labour and appeal to the courts. Thats IT.

Actually they do more than withold their labour. They frequently obstruct access to facilities and sometimes resort to violence. In the Toronto strike, picketers did not permit residents access to the depot to deposit trash.

See Bill C-10 for an example of Union POWER!

Bill C-10 part 10.

Excellent. It is a pity more governments don't have the courage to pass such legislation. Where is Mike Harris when you need him?

[Michael Hardner]

The "tome" as you call it is not 33 years old. The research paper I linked is currently on the Public Service Commission website and contains references dated as recent as 2007.

"The Public Service Commission of Canada is an independent agency responsible for safeguarding the values of a professional Public Service: competence, non-partisanship and representativeness". That's their mandate. Impartiality is an issue continually studied at the PSC. Any improvement regarding an impartial public service would come through that agency.

Capricorn,

It seems to me that that agency needs to be eliminated, then.

[Michael Hardner]

Bad Management makes for Strong Unions.

Hear hear, Peter F.

I have worked in establishments with excellent management, and it makes the work environment so much better. One can focus on their tasks and not have to deal with 'noise'. It's preferable to work in such an environment for less money than to work for government for more money, IMO.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Hear hear, Peter F.

I have worked in establishments with excellent management, and it makes the work environment so much better. One can focus on their tasks and not have to deal with 'noise'. It's preferable to work in such an environment for less money than to work for government for more money, IMO.

Money does play into the issue doesn't it? I once attempted to have my union abandon wage issues by proposing that the union incorporate a cost of living adjustment into our contract . The idea was to take the annual rate of inflation as posted by the Government of Canada quarterly as a raise. Given that business always passes along price increases to consumers I thought that it would be a good way to go. I was shot down in flames.

[Peter F]

Money does play into the issue doesn't it? I once attempted to have my union abandon wage issues by proposing that the union incorporate a cost of living adjustment into our contract . The idea was to take the annual rate of inflation as posted by the Government of Canada quarterly as a raise. Given that business always passes along price increases to consumers I thought that it would be a good way to go. I was shot down in flames.

Same here. COL clause in contract is what I was after because I thought we have a very good wage. The rest of the bargaining team thought COL was great but wanted a wage increase to boot. vote 6-1 favour of them.

Anyone who thinks unions are filled with Marxists are in dreamland.

Edit to add: Turned out management agreed to a wage increase (about half as much as the demand) but refused to discuss COL clause. Good thing the vote went against me cause if I succeeded we would have got nothing!

Edited June 24, 2009 by Peter F