Public Sector Unions

[dre]

If you hold that an indiviudal has the freedom of association and thus the right to collective barganing, do you also agree:

1. That a individual has the right to NOT engage in collective barganing if they choose? (ie they have the right to work and establish a personal contract with an employer independant of collective representation or a union).

2. That employers have a right to not engage in collective barganing if they choose and hire individuals who are will to create individual employment contracts.

1. They have the right to negotiate a contract with any company they like. However, if a company has signed a CBA with a labor association that company may or may not have the legal right to seek employees outside the union, depending on what was in the CBA they signed.

2. Yes employers do this all the time. Its fine.

[dre]

It is in no way a check on government power. Like you admittedly say, government can literally change things at the stroke of a pen - good bye Union

They could try but governments that do that are often shut down by general strikes. They cease to function and get forced back to the table.

[Jack Weber]

If you hold that an indiviudal has the freedom of association and thus the right to collective barganing, do you also agree:

1. That a individual has the right to NOT engage in collective barganing if they choose? (ie they have the right to work and establish a personal contract with an employer independant of collective representation or a union).

2. That employers have a right to not engage in collective barganing if they choose and hire individuals who are will to create individual employment contracts.

If someone does'nt want to belong to a union,why go looking for work at one,or a business that contains an representative organization?

This is the silly union busting word game the "Right to Work" folks use to get around what they are really trying to do,which is bust unions.

Those people have a choice...Go down the street to the non union shop and work.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Jack Weber

[fellowtraveller]

The problems often arise when the employer doesnt fight hard enough during CBA negotiatiion and doesnt look far enough ahead into the future.

There is absolutely no incentive for a public sector management negotiator to fall on his sword over a big raise for everybody. In the end, if the union wins- and they almost always do- the govt just raises taxes. No problem, no consequences, nobody loses their job or suffers in any way except of course taxpayers.

Not so easy in the profit driven world of the private sector, in theory at least the price of labour rises and falls with supply/demand.

[Pliny]

There is absolutely no incentive for a public sector management negotiator to fall on his sword over a big raise for everybody. In the end, if the union wins- and they almost always do- the govt just raises taxes. No problem, no consequences, nobody loses their job or suffers in any way except of course taxpayers.

Not so easy in the profit driven world of the private sector, in theory at least the price of labour rises and falls with supply/demand.

Precisely!

[Pliny]

If someone does'nt want to belong to a union,why go looking for work at one,or a business that contains an representative organization?

This is the silly union busting word game the "Right to Work" folks use to get around what they are really trying to do,which is bust unions.

Those people have a choice...Go down the street to the non union shop and work.

Good question. Why would a person want a job at a union shop that will eventually destroy the company that employs him? Well...If his timing is right he will retire before the company is destroyed and that is his biggest risk. Why would he go against his Union and think any further than beyond his own benefit? His Union is supposed to think of those questions, not him.

People will make a choice but it will be the one that is most beneficial to them. They won't go down the street and work for half the wages of a union shop if they can work at the union shop. They will take the risk that the company management of a union shop will be able to keep the company alive while they are employed there.

If the choice is work for less - it isn't really a choice. The person hired at Toyota may find he is working for less than those at GM, and be envious, but he may have a job for longer - depending on his timing.

[Argus]

Organization also means that the design of the organization has to make sense.

Efficiency .... we need to start caring about it... every chance you get, complain about how they handle things... spread the virus of discontent...

You think I'm alone? Unfortunately, there is a vast canyon between those who make the rules and those who follow them. Those up on top are primarily concerned with one thing - oversight. They want as much control and oversight as possible to ensure nothing happens that might embarrass them or damage their progression up the ladder. If that oversight makes a 1 day job take 1 month instead - so be it. If it doubles, triples or quadruples the cost, that's okay. All that's important is that the senior manager have absolute control and knowledge of every little thing that happens which might, even if in only extraordinary circumstances, cause him to have to answer questions from his own overseers.

In aid of this we have POLICY. Policy is excellent because it absolves management of any need to make decisions. Making decisions on ones own is an anguishing experience because if they make the wrong decision they might be held to account for it. Following policy, even if it doesn't make sense, absolves management of any worries in that regard. So management spends a lot of time ensuring there are lots and lots of policies on everything. Guidelines too (note, the term guide might imply some degree of leeway which does not actually exist. Guidelines are rigid, unbending rules - the same as policy).

Needless to say, guidelines and policies are invented by committees, and have the broadest possible application. That inevitably means that all sorts of individual situations and circumstances occur where the policy or guidelines would make no sense. But again, that really doesn't matter. As long as everyone follows policy, no one can be blamed. And avoiding blame is what management is all about.

In aid of this we have HR. HR is an organization in government which is filled with those people who didn't know what they wanted to do in life, went to university, and took things like English and Sociology and Psychology. It's task in a large, government organization, is to try to drain every ounce of life and humanity out of the employees of a given organization. Humans can cause trouble. They can act up, can make complaints about this or that. That's a lot of bother and trouble. So HR does its level best to implement policies which require the workforce to act, in effect, as though they were robots. Almost any kind of human emotion or behavior is proscribed by this or that policy. This tends to make the workers extremely unhappy, unproductive, and inventive in terms of finding excuses not to go to work. But that's just a money issue, and management doesn't get blamed for that. So it's all good.

[Michael Hardner]

You think I'm alone? Unfortunately, there is a vast canyon between those who make the rules and those who follow them. Those up on top are primarily concerned with one thing - oversight. They want as much control and oversight as possible to ensure nothing happens that might embarrass them or damage their progression up the ladder. If that oversight makes a 1 day job take 1 month instead - so be it. If it doubles, triples or quadruples the cost, that's okay. All that's important is that the senior manager have absolute control and knowledge of every little thing that happens which might, even if in only extraordinary circumstances, cause him to have to answer questions from his own overseers.

And why is that ? I postulate that it's because success is measured by the absence of gaffes to embarrass the deputy minister. Am I right ?

If so, then what kind of culture does that create - cautious to a fault, inefficient and expensive.

Business doesn't work that way - they are accountable for costs as well. But government isn't - and why ? I say it's because people pay attention to the wrong things. Or more accurately, the broad stroke of people only care about the wrong things.

The eHealth debacle in Ontario is a perfect example. $1B wasted, and nobody bats an eye until a consultant submits a $3 bill for her tea.

In aid of this we have POLICY. Policy is excellent because it absolves management of any need to make decisions. Making decisions on ones own is an anguishing experience because if they make the wrong decision they might be held to account for it. Following policy, even if it doesn't make sense, absolves management of any worries in that regard. So management spends a lot of time ensuring there are lots and lots of policies on everything. Guidelines too (note, the term guide might imply some degree of leeway which does not actually exist. Guidelines are rigid, unbending rules - the same as policy).

Needless to say, guidelines and policies are invented by committees, and have the broadest possible application. That inevitably means that all sorts of individual situations and circumstances occur where the policy or guidelines would make no sense. But again, that really doesn't matter. As long as everyone follows policy, no one can be blamed. And avoiding blame is what management is all about.

In aid of this we have HR. HR is an organization in government which is filled with those people who didn't know what they wanted to do in life, went to university, and took things like English and Sociology and Psychology. It's task in a large, government organization, is to try to drain every ounce of life and humanity out of the employees of a given organization. Humans can cause trouble. They can act up, can make complaints about this or that. That's a lot of bother and trouble. So HR does its level best to implement policies which require the workforce to act, in effect, as though they were robots. Almost any kind of human emotion or behavior is proscribed by this or that policy. This tends to make the workers extremely unhappy, unproductive, and inventive in terms of finding excuses not to go to work. But that's just a money issue, and management doesn't get blamed for that. So it's all good.

This is the perspective from somebody in the belly of the bast. So what do you do about it ?

My answer is that you create a better class of information - cost specific, based on numbers, throughput, and results - and you make it available to a class of information consumers that are interested, and will enlist like-minded individuals, regardless of political stripe.

Me, for example. You would say that I'm left-of-centre but nobody wants to throw away money. I suspect that if the vast resources of government were repurposed you could cut costs, and increase service levels, and give the workers a sense that they are doing something.

Once you created some buzz around these new information services, the mainstream media would take notice and give it proper credit.

My pipe dream, I'll admit, but it's really just about doing what government was supposed to do from the beginning - cover the basics. There is nothing that bothers me more than to hear left-of-centre people ask for the moon and declare that we're on the verge of disaster if we don't buy it.

[dre]

If you want to increase the efficiency at any company heres how you do it...

Fire the top tier of management, move critical responsibilities down one tier and watch the company for a quarter. Then fire the next tier down, and monitor things for another quarter. Keep firing tiers of management until the company ceases to function, then hire the last tier you fired back, and youre done!

[Michael Hardner]

If you want to increase the efficiency at any company heres how you do it...

Fire the top tier of management, move critical responsibilities down one tier and watch the company for a quarter. Then fire the next tier down, and monitor things for another quarter. Keep firing tiers of management until the company ceases to function, then hire the last tier you fired back, and youre done!

And who has done this ?

Edited June 12, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[dre]

And who has done this ?

A lot of companies especially outside of North America have had to deal with the natural tendency of a corporate structure to become top heavy, and the massive inefficiency caused by it.

But I guarantee nobody has ever used my approach, and if you think about it for a minute youll probably see why. Upper management would have to make a decision to eliminate themselves

Managerialism spreads like a plague, and once a company becomes infected the result is paralyzing.

Heres a quick example...

Th GMB reports that there are now 4.1 million managers in the UK. That's an increase of 1.4 million since 1981. There are now more managers than there are either skilled tradesmen or professionals in the workforce. There is plenty of scope for cutting out several tiers of top heavy management.

Theres more managers in the UK than there is workers now And while the number of managers has grown by 30% in the last couple of decades corporate profits have been flat. So all these extra managers are not really contributing anything.

The problem of course is that a bloated management structure is a lot like herpes in that its very tough to get rid off.

[Michael Hardner]

Theres more managers in the UK than there is workers now And while the number of managers has grown by 30% in the last couple of decades corporate profits have been flat. So all these extra managers are not really contributing anything.

The problem of course is that a bloated management structure is a lot like herpes in that its very tough to get rid off.

Well, the issue needs more careful examination than what you are giving it, frankly.

What is a manager, and what was a manager back then ?

[punked]

Shady wont be happy until those in the public sector earn nothing and have no retirement plan.

[Michael Hardner]

Shady wont be happy until those in the public sector earn nothing and have no retirement plan.

What would make you happy though ? Are you satisfied with how things are going ?

[punked]

What would make you happy though ? Are you satisfied with how things are going ?

No in fact I have been saying the public sector need to put more in their own pension funds for a long time. I however do not want to see our teachers and nurses eating cat food because they are lazy public sector workers. That is the difference I don't think pensions are wrong and that our public workers shouldn't make a living wage. I think things need to be fixed not killed.

[Michael Hardner]

No in fact I have been saying the public sector need to put more in their own pension funds for a long time. I however do not want to see our teachers and nurses eating cat food because they are lazy public sector workers. That is the difference I don't think pensions are wrong and that our public workers shouldn't make a living wage. I think things need to be fixed not killed.

This is a big problem I have with my fellow LOC types.

An elementary school teacher top grade in Ontario makes 90K after ten years. That is not even mid career. There are hardly any jobs that pay that well.

Cat food is a long way from what we are talking about.

[dre]

Part of the problem with public sector unions and the perception of them is that we heavily subsidize private sector employees, which makes it seem like theres a big difference in Salaries when really there isnt.

Lots of companies pay workers less than a living wage, and leave them in a position where they need to partially subsidized by the government. This is in effect a direct subsidy to private industry.

Its perilous to try to compare public VS private in our system of corporate welfare capitalism, because we dont really HAVE a real private sector.

[punked]

This is a big problem I have with my fellow LOC types.

An elementary school teacher top grade in Ontario makes 90K after ten years. That is not even mid career. There are hardly any jobs that pay that well.

Cat food is a long way from what we are talking about.

Show me. That just isn't true, as far as I can tell the highest pay scale is 75 thousand and that is only if they have a masters degree. So to that point they have 8-10 years of post secondary school under them. So for the amount of education they have they actually are receiving a very low pay. However I don't think anyone should get rich off the public dime AND I do think they should put more in their pension so the tax payer is not on the hook for it.

However what you say is just silly the median salary for a teacher in Ontario is 49 grand. Not a huge amount by Ontario standards, and certainly not a good amount for someone who has to have at least two university degrees. Lets put in perspective you want someone with 2 degrees teaching your kids they should be paid more then the person working full time at McDonalds.

[Michael Hardner]

Show me. That just isn't true, as far as I can tell the highest pay scale is 75 thousand and that is only if they have a masters degree. So to that point they have 8-10 years of post secondary school under them. So for the amount of education they have they actually are receiving a very low pay. However I don't think anyone should get rich off the public dime AND I do think they should put more in their pension so the tax payer is not on the hook for it.

However what you say is just silly the median salary for a teacher in Ontario is 49 grand. Not a huge amount by Ontario standards, and certainly not a good amount for someone who has to have at least two university degrees. Lets put in perspective you want someone with 2 degrees teaching your kids they should be paid more then the person working full time at McDonalds.

The chart I saw had the top pay of 90K after 10 years. This link http://www.lauriercc.ca/content/documents/fileItemController/Becoming%20a%20Teacher%20in%20Ontario%20September%202009.pdf seems to say 83K but it's from 2008. The chart I had was for the school year starting in 2010. But... even if you take the salary from 2008 - 83K is pretty good even for a masters degree.

They a receiving a very low pay. I'm not sure how you can say that, unless you compare them to MBAs perhaps. Median salary isn't really relevant, though because increases are guaranteed. The overall costs are what is important - the amount spent on education. Lots of people with masters degrees end up in low paying jobs, too.

What about the rest of the civil service? Government in general? Are you concerned about costs to administer public services?

[punked]

The chart I saw had the top pay of 90K after 10 years. This link http://www.lauriercc.ca/content/documents/fileItemController/Becoming%20a%20Teacher%20in%20Ontario%20September%202009.pdf seems to say 83K but it's from 2008. The chart I had was for the school year starting in 2010. But... even if you take the salary from 2008 - 83K is pretty good even for a masters degree.

They a receiving a very low pay. I'm not sure how you can say that, unless you compare them to MBAs perhaps. Median salary isn't really relevant, though because increases are guaranteed. The overall costs are what is important - the amount spent on education. Lots of people with masters degrees end up in low paying jobs, too.

What about the rest of the civil service? Government in general? Are you concerned about costs to administer public services?

I am saying you don't get 90,000 you need two masters for that, the top teacher with out a masters is like 60,000. It is easy to be angry at "those lazy teachers earning 100,000 dollars a year" however that just isn't true. That is not what they are earning only those teachers who are the best (those achieving 2 master degrees) are earning the top bracket and they are still only earning 75-80 grand after 10 years of education. Most people who have 2 masters are not earning a low pay. You ask to have the best to teach your children you have to pay for it.

The reality of the situation is much different then the one the right wing creates.

Edited June 12, 2010 by punked

[Jack Weber]

Good question. Why would a person want a job at a union shop that will eventually destroy the company that employs him? Well...If his timing is right he will retire before the company is destroyed and that is his biggest risk. Why would he go against his Union and think any further than beyond his own benefit? His Union is supposed to think of those questions, not him.

People will make a choice but it will be the one that is most beneficial to them. They won't go down the street and work for half the wages of a union shop if they can work at the union shop. They will take the risk that the company management of a union shop will be able to keep the company alive while they are employed there.

If the choice is work for less - it isn't really a choice. The person hired at Toyota may find he is working for less than those at GM, and be envious, but he may have a job for longer - depending on his timing.

First of all,while there are some kooks in the labour movement,I don't know of any individual union local negotiating committe that wants to destroy the company they are working for.It's the company that ultimately puts the bread on the table because they're scratching the cheque's.Your free market fear mongering is just that...Nonsensical fear mongering.That you think individual union locals are some monolithic entity that does'nt respond to individual members is equally nonsensical.

What do you think a grievance system is for?

What do you think meetings are for?

If one is siding wih the open shop side(Right to Work),one is siding with union busting.On average,in RTW states in the US,a worker will make almost $5000 a year less,less coverage on the benefit plan,and,be 50% more likely to be injured and/or killed on the job.That does'nt sound like a good idea to me.Now we ahve the WRAP heavy industry slurpers in Alberta promoting the same type of legislation.In a province dominated by the impoverished oil and gas industry.

It is good to see that you admit that non-union shops pay less.It should be noted that in almost any sector of the economy,it's the union wage and benefit package that sets the bar.If that's gone,and that's what the open shop people want(always backed by employers),who's to say how low the bar gets set?

[Michael Hardner]

I am saying you don't get 90,000 you need two masters for that, the top teacher with out a masters is like 60,000. It is easy to be angry at "those lazy teachers earning 100,000 dollars a year" however that just isn't true. That is not what they are earning only those teachers who are the best (those achieving 2 master degrees) are earning the top bracket and they are still only earning 75-80 grand after 10 years of education. Most people who have 2 masters are not earning a low pay. You ask to have the best to teach your children you have to pay for it.

The reality of the situation is much different then the one the right wing creates.

http://www.ocetf.org/collective-bargaining/topics-of-interest/salary-grids.aspx

Lowest grade top salary will be about 69K this September.

There's no point at getting angry at teachers or going into a labour war.

Generally, though, are you concerned about the size and cost of government ? Judging by your comment about teachers eating cat food, which is not really a concern at this point unless the teacher in question likes cat food, then it seems not.

[dre]

First of all,while there are some kooks in the labour movement,I don't know of any individual union local negotiating committe that wants to destroy the company they are working for.It's the company that ultimately puts the bread on the table because they're scratching the cheque's.Your free market fear mongering is just that...Nonsensical fear mongering.That you think individual union locals are some monolithic entity that does'nt respond to individual members is equally nonsensical.

What do you think a grievance system is for?

What do you think meetings are for?

If one is siding wih the open shop side(Right to Work),one is siding with union busting.On average,in RTW states in the US,a worker will make almost $5000 a year less,less coverage on the benefit plan,and,be 50% more likely to be injured and/or killed on the job.That does'nt sound like a good idea to me.Now we ahve the WRAP heavy industry slurpers in Alberta promoting the same type of legislation.In a province dominated by the impoverished oil and gas industry.

It is good to see that you admit that non-union shops pay less.It should be noted that in almost any sector of the economy,it's the union wage and benefit package that sets the bar.If that's gone,and that's what the open shop people want(always backed by employers),who's to say how low the bar gets set?

If that's gone,and that's what the open shop people want(always backed by employers),who's to say how low the bar gets set?

Oh its not that tough to say... you can just look at history, and how workers were treated, and how much they were paid, and the conditions they had to work in... before the advent of organized labor.

[punked]

http://www.ocetf.org/collective-bargaining/topics-of-interest/salary-grids.aspx

Lowest grade top salary will be about 69K this September.

There's no point at getting angry at teachers or going into a labour war.

Generally, though, are you concerned about the size and cost of government ? Judging by your comment about teachers eating cat food, which is not really a concern at this point unless the teacher in question likes cat food, then it seems not.

No it wont. You can't just make stuff up like that the majority of teachers are not A4 that is almost solely School psychologist who have most 12 years of post secondary education and many of whom have school loans in the 100,000-200,000 dollar range they go to school as long as a doctor.

Most teachers are earning around 60,000 dollars a year. You might think that is too much I don't. However you can't pick out the top position which almost always isn't employed at one school but is shared between 3-5 schools and say "see teachers earn to much" You are playing fast and lose with the facts because you don't want argue on the actual facts because you know most people would say "Yeah that is about the right salary for teachers" I don't want people to get rich off the public dime but they should earn enough so that can stay in the profession and we can keep out best teachers.

[Michael Hardner]

No it wont. You can't just make stuff up like that the majority of teachers are not A4 that is almost solely School psychologist who have most 12 years of post secondary education and many of whom have school loans in the 100,000-200,000 dollar range they go to school as long as a doctor.

Most teachers are earning around 60,000 dollars a year. You might think that is too much I don't. However you can't pick out the top position which almost always isn't employed at one school but is shared between 3-5 schools and say "see teachers earn to much" You are playing fast and lose with the facts because you don't want argue on the actual facts because you know most people would say "Yeah that is about the right salary for teachers" I don't want people to get rich off the public dime but they should earn enough so that can stay in the profession and we can keep out best teachers.

If they`re making that much, then they have been teaching for less than 10 years, which means they`re less than 34 years old, so...

I didn`t say they earn too much, and I even said that I don`t want labour unrest but let`s call it as it is hm ?

I`ll leave the rest of my questions on the thread.