Public Sector Unions

[punked]

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.

NO it does not mean that at all. Infact most teachers don't get into the profession until they are 26-27 and they have to do 2-3 of supply teaching where their years do not count. Again you can not take the top teacher and say "SEE TEACHERS EARN TO MUCH". Fact is the average teacher in Ontario earns 59,000 dollars and that 1 out of 3 people leave the profession in the first 5 years. It is not the cushy job you make it out to be. It is hard to get into, it is hard to stay in and once you get in it you have to stay educated.

Like I said I think they earn what they are worth I don't think the average salary for a teacher should be higher then 65,000 however I do not think it should be lower then 55,000. I think they are earning what they are worth and as such should think of putting more money in their pension so it is still there in a number of years.

[Michael Hardner]

NO it does not mean that at all. Infact most teachers don't get into the profession until they are 26-27 and they have to do 2-3 of supply teaching where their years do not count. Again you can not take the top teacher and say "SEE TEACHERS EARN TO MUCH". Fact is the average teacher in Ontario earns 59,000 dollars and that 1 out of 3 people leave the profession in the first 5 years. It is not the cushy job you make it out to be. It is hard to get into, it is hard to stay in and once you get in it you have to stay educated.

Like I said I think they earn what they are worth I don't think the average salary for a teacher should be higher then 65,000 however I do not think it should be lower then 55,000. I think they are earning what they are worth and as such should think of putting more money in their pension so it is still there in a number of years.

Punked - you accused me of playing fast and loose with the facts, yet you are misquoting me despite my pointing that out. I never said it was cushy - I said they were well paid.

And you haven`t answered my questions, and want to talk about teachers and debate a position that I don`t even hold. So, this discussion isn`t leading anywhere.

[Topaz]

Do large school boards pay their employees, teachers, VP's and Principals more than smaller ones. If so, you can have arrange of wages throughout the province. There's nothing wrong with most unions, in these times, most need one to protect themselves from abuses and if everyone could belong to one, we wouldn't have so many complaining about them.

[Renegade]

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.

1. If a company signs an agreement in which it willings gives up to hire non-union workers that is fine, however in most cases workers are FORCED to join a union, even if they do not want to, and even if a company is willing to sign individual contracts with them, if enough other workers want to unionize. Those workers lose their free choice to contract with the party they please.

[Renegade]

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?

How about if a union wants to represent the workers, they go find a business that wants a union? Makes a lot of sense doesn't it?

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.

The unions should exist to represent only those workers who want to be represented by the union. Any other forced union membership is coercion.

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

Of course that is a choice, but that is not the only choice. They should also have the choice to enter into whatever contract they choose without coercion.

How about this: The union has a choice, they can go find a place down the street where ALL the workers want to be represented by a union.

[dre]

1. If a company signs an agreement in which it willings gives up to hire non-union workers that is fine, however in most cases workers are FORCED to join a union, even if they do not want to, and even if a company is willing to sign individual contracts with them, if enough other workers want to unionize. Those workers lose their free choice to contract with the party they please.

That entires depends on whats in the CBA the company signs with a union.

In any case ALL workers benefit from organized labor, not just union workers.

[Bonam]

In any case ALL workers benefit from organized labor, not just union workers.

Lies. Who benefits? The young enthusiastic teacher that gets fired because they have less seniority then some sour old lady that has long forgotten how to teach anything? The auto worker whose company goes bankrupt because of the bloated benefits that previous generations of workers have received? The non-unionized software engineer who pays 40% of his income in tax so that the government can spend billions of dollars on unionized labor, when the same job could be done for half the price? The start-up founder who can't afford to hire anyone because union laws and standards have forced the cost of labor far too high? The student who misses his final exams because the bus drivers are on strike? The people living in a city buried in piles of garbage as the garbage workers demand more pay and benefits, and where laws prevent hiring independent/private garbage collection?

None of these people benefit.

[punked]

Lies. Who benefits? The young enthusiastic teacher that gets fired because they have less seniority then some sour old lady that has long forgotten how to teach anything? The auto worker whose company goes bankrupt because of the bloated benefits that previous generations of workers have received? The non-unionized software engineer who pays 40% of his income in tax so that the government can spend billions of dollars on unionized labor, when the same job could be done for half the price? The start-up founder who can't afford to hire anyone because union laws and standards have forced the cost of labor far too high? The student who misses his final exams because the bus drivers are on strike? The people living in a city buried in piles of garbage as the garbage workers demand more pay and benefits, and where laws prevent hiring independent/private garbage collection?

None of these people benefit.

You just made up all of those examples.

What he is talking about is game theory. If say 20% of workers are organized and they demand more money then there will be a raise for the 80% in that field to make it so they don't organize. You really should look at how wages have gone up threw time to see it happen.

[Bonam]

You just made up all of those examples.

What he is talking about is game theory. If say 20% of workers are organized and they demand more money then there will be a raise for the 80% in that field to make it so they don't organize. You really should look at how wages have gone up threw time to see it happen.

All the highest wages are still in non-unionized jobs, where people can actually compete based on their own merits rather than simply acquiescing to some collective agreement of mediocrity. The examples have all happened and you know it. Your drastically oversimplified application of game theory is baseless. Not everything is a 2x2 decision matrix of prisoner's dilemma.

[punked]

All the highest wages are still in non-unionized jobs, where people can actually compete based on their own merits rather than simply acquiescing to some collective agreement of mediocrity. The examples have all happened and you know it. Your drastically oversimplified application of game theory is baseless. Not everything is a 2x2 decision matrix of prisoner's dilemma.

ON average a union worker makes more then another one, and again you just made that up.

Game theory moved past the prisoner's dilemma 50 years ago John Nash won a Nobel prize for it.

[Bonam]

ON average a union worker makes more then another one

Perhaps, perhaps not, you've failed to cite any statistics. But that is completely beside my point. Who makes the most money in our society: executives, celebrities, athletes, investors, accountants, lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. These people largely work without unions, and yet make the most money.

and again you just made that up.

Is that your new go to rebuttal? Whenever someone makes a statement of their own rather than parroting some article, you just spout "you made that up"? How about addressing some of my earlier examples? Which of those situations do you think never happened? Those are all realistic scenarios.

Game theory moved past the prisoner's dilemma 50 years ago John Nash won a Nobel prize for it.

Game theory has, but your application of it evidently has not.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Bonam

[Jack Weber]

How about if a union wants to represent the workers, they go find a business that wants a union? Makes a lot of sense doesn't it?

The unions should exist to represent only those workers who want to be represented by the union. Any other forced union membership is coercion.

Of course that is a choice, but that is not the only choice. They should also have the choice to enter into whatever contract they choose without coercion.

How about this: The union has a choice, they can go find a place down the street where ALL the workers want to be represented by a union.

Open shop/"Right to Work" union busting drivel....

Edited June 13, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Remiel]

Perhaps, perhaps not, you've failed to cite any statistics. But that is completely beside my point. Who makes the most money in our society: executives, celebrities, athletes, investors, accountants, lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. These people largely work without unions, and yet make the most money.

Not exactly true examples. Executives, yes. Celebebrities is so vague as to be as useless category. Athletes, no; most professional athletes, at least on this continent, do have unions. Investors are simply a different kind of union, an owners union instead of an employee one. Lawyers and doctors have professional organizations which go to bat for them, somewhat similar to unions, though not exactly analagous. Engineers, well, I will not presume to tell you how that one goes, hehehe... You did not mention actors: also unionized.

[Peter F]

Lies. Who benefits?

None of these people benefit.

ah the wierdo fantasy world of management!...

The young enthusiastic teacher that gets fired because they have less seniority then some sour old lady that has long forgotten how to teach anything?

the sour ol lady has not long forgotten how to teach anything. Thus she is still employed. People can be sacked for incompetence - its done quite regularly. The ol' lady is still teaching ergo she is competent. And yes, the union will endeavour to have the ol lady keep the job and the younger one laid-off (not 'fired'- although it wouldn't surprise be a bit that managers would find it sensible to 'fire' the young enthusiastic

one and retain the old incompetent one) and the union will do so because the ol lady is going to find it much more difficult to find work than the young one. So when lay-offs occur amongst the competent 'last hired first laid off' is a very fair and sensible way of doing things. Fear not, if management truly wishes to keep the services of the young go-getter they'll find a position for that person that is safe from layoff.

....but that doesnt play well. Management loves blaming others for thier decisions "We have to fire you because the union made us! We truly really really dont want to fire you but we have no choice! Its the Unions fault!" and people soak that shit up like sponges...

The auto worker whose company goes bankrupt because of the bloated benefits that previous generations of workers have received?

Good lord...Going out of business is the employees fault. Management - again - has no responsibility. Thier workers made them go broke!

Quite a few non-unionized places go bust too, y'know. I wonder what thier story is? No I don't. Its probably the exact same story: The workers fucked it up!

The non-unionized software engineer who pays 40% of his income in tax so that the government can spend billions of dollars on unionized labor, when the same job could be done for half the price?

Really? And here I thought my taxes were going to mp's salaries, management of government offices, police services, new Fighters for the military, Buoys in Juan de Fuca strait, fire-fighters, public education, roads, bridges, winter olympics and tiny lakes etc etc. Poor non-unionized folk have to pay taxes because of the unions.

The start-up founder who can't afford to hire anyone because union laws and standards have forced the cost of labor far too high?

No. He cant afford to hire anyone because he hasnt got the cash required for the start up! Jesus wept! Can't even start a business and its the unions fault!

The student who misses his final exams because the bus drivers are on strike?

or maybe the school administration that couldn't give two shits about the bus drivers on strike and refused to re-schedule the exams? No? They're totally innocent? How about the student gets up early in the morning and gets a ride into town? something like that?

The people living in a city buried in piles of garbage as the garbage workers demand more pay and benefits, and where laws prevent hiring independent/private garbage collection?

Goodness. The unions even controll law-makers making or changing laws. If laws prevent hiring independant/private garbage collection then change the effing law. No, lets just sob about how the union wont give us permission to do that....boo hoo.

[Bonam]

ah the wierdo fantasy world of management!...

the sour ol lady has not long forgotten how to teach anything.

Lies, I've personally had many absolutely terrible old teachers. All of the worst teachers I've had have been in their 60s or older. They really should not have been teaching any more. No energy, no initiative. Endless complaints from parents. If they hadn't been protected by union contracts they would have long since been laid off.

Good lord...Going out of business is the employees fault. Management - again - has no responsibility. Thier workers made them go broke!

The strangling union conditions certainly had an impact on the decline and bankruptcy of companies like GM and Chrysler. That's not to say it was the only cause, but they may well have managed to survive if they hadn't been hamstrung by the unions for decades.

Really? And here I thought my taxes were going to mp's salaries, management of government offices, police services, new Fighters for the military, Buoys in Juan de Fuca strait, fire-fighters, public education, roads, bridges, winter olympics and tiny lakes etc etc. Poor non-unionized folk have to pay taxes because of the unions.

They go to all of these things. Who builds the roads and bridges, who carries out public education, who collects the garbage? Unionized workers. Some of these services could doubtless be provided more cost effectively without the unions.

No. He cant afford to hire anyone because he hasnt got the cash required for the start up! Jesus wept! Can't even start a business and its the unions fault!

Not everyone who starts up a business is a millionaire. Many start from very little. The higher the cost of hiring employees, competing with union jobs that provide health and dental benefits and paid vacations, etc, the greater the barrier for new businesses that do not have the capital for such expenditures.

or maybe the school administration that couldn't give two shits about the bus drivers on strike and refused to re-schedule the exams? No? They're totally innocent?

Yes, they are. Why the hell would a school, where most of the students live near/on campus, reschedule exams to a later time (in the summer) when many students doubtless already had plans to be somewhere else by that time? That would have been way more of a disaster.

How about the student gets up early in the morning and gets a ride into town? something like that?

How about if the student had spent the last few days studying rather than following the news and had no clue the buses weren't gonna be running?

Goodness. The unions even controll law-makers making or changing laws.

They do control relevant ones. Some union contracts specifically prevent a city from hiring non-unionized workers to fill the jobs during a strike. This was specifically the case with certain recent garbage strikes as you may be aware.

If laws prevent hiring independant/private garbage collection then change the effing law.

Couldn't agree more.

[Renegade]

In any case ALL workers benefit from organized labor, not just union workers.

No not all workers benefit. You assume that when a union sets a price for labour, all workers, (ie sellers of labour) benefit. How does that benefit the worker who can't sell his labour at that price? Is it better for that worker that price of labour is $30/hour but he is unemployed or is it better for that worker that the price of labour is $15/hour and he is employed?

Further, even where unions may help a subset of workers it is determental to the end consumers of the product or service since it drives up the cost of that product.

[Renegade]

Open shop/"Right to Work" union busting drivel....

Really insightful argument! A union deserves to exist as much as a virus deserves to exist. There is nothing inherently wrong in questioning the benefit of a union. Those who resort to responses such as "you are wrong because your arguments are anti-union", are those who don't have an intenlligent defence for the existance of a union.

[Handsome Rob]

No not all workers benefit. You assume that when a union sets a price for labour, all workers, (ie sellers of labour) benefit. How does that benefit the worker who can't sell his labour at that price? Is it better for that worker that price of labour is $30/hour but he is unemployed or is it better for that worker that the price of labour is $15/hour and he is employed?

Further, even where unions may help a subset of workers it is determental to the end consumers of the product or service since it drives up the cost of that product.

Agree.

Disclaimer: Punked, this is my personal opinion and should be treated as such.

Unions simply collect wealth to a lesser extent, and spread it over a larger base. The incurred penalty is driving up the expense of products delivered, and COL, in effect making it more difficult for the non-unionized equivalent to get by.

In a pro-union wet dream, with everybody making a 'living wage,' inflation will account any gains made and status quo returned to.

I'm very pleased that unions exist and they've brought us benefits, but the fact remains that we've come a long way passed 'poverty wages' in North America, with even our minimum wage earners being looked up on by the overwhelming majority of the worlds population, including industrialized nations. It's interesting to hear people talk about the 'old days' of good wages and benefits, but they still saved up to buy a color television as opposed to our modern day, 'poor,' minimum wage earner replacing their LCD every 2 years on credit because of new tech.

People like to harp about billionaires and fabulous wealth, but if we divided it up amongst ourselves, what are we left, a few hundred extra dollars per year?

[Remiel]

How about if the student had spent the last few days studying rather than following the news and had no clue the buses weren't gonna be running?

You can trust me when I say that everyone on campus knows when there is going to be a bus strike in the near future.

[punked]

You can trust me when I say that everyone on campus knows when there is going to be a bus strike in the near future.

Don't even try he is just making things up. What about the worker who gets killed in an unsafe work place because he is afraid if he speaks up he will be fired? Wait a minute while that may happen I can't think of a real example. See every can make stuff up that does not make it true.

[Argus]

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 ?

To a certain extent, but the correlation is negative. That is to say, the absence of gaffes won't help you, but the presence will definitely hurt you.

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

Most definitely.

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.

There's no simple answer. Numbers are not ignored, they are analyzed to excruciating detail so the senior manager can be absolutely sure of things. Of course, the numbers are often wrong, but that's another story.

I think one of the major costs of inefficiency is too much oversight. I was once involved in paying cell phone bills. This was a complicated process which involved dividing the incoming invoices according to the business centre where the employee worked, sending copies of the invoice with forms, to the employee concerned, who had to indicate if they used the cell phone for personal reasons, and how much of the resulting cost they would therefore be reimbursing us. This form and invoice then went to their manager for sign-off before returning to us.

Seem sensible? I bet most people would say that was a good example of oversight.

I calculated that the administrative costs involved in all this - the sorting, copying, form-filling out, moving of folders back and forth, which took hours and hours and days and days) exceeded the actual invoice cost of most of the cell phones involved. You understand? It was costing more to process the invoices than the cost of the cell phones! And the actual amounts to reimbursed were generally nil or a pittance, a dollar or three. We were spending tens of thousands to watch out for a couple of hundred worth of private use of cell phones. And we still are, btw, though thank God I don't have to do it.

I could give example after example of how oversight has slowed work, multiplied forms, and increased costs of doing almost everything in government, especially anything which involves purchasing or human resources.

A private sector employer can put an ad in the paper and hire someone within a week. It takes the federal government the better part of a year to organize a competition, hold tests, conduct interviews, and finally begin to hire even the lowest level of employees. Why? To get the best employee? Well, not especially. The real point of all the complexity is to ensure there is fairness, that there is no favouratism, that there is no discrimination, that everyone has the same chance, etc. Of course, it doesn't work. Favoritism, discrimination and unfairness remain. Humans will always get around systems like that. So the immense cost in time and money - not to mention the poor work areas who can't get employees for months and months on end, goes for nothing.

You want to save money and streamline the process? Trust your employees more. Yes, on occasion, that will mean small losses by theft or misuse. But you'll save a ton of money in the end. Let managers hire whoever they want to hire right off the street. Let purchasing people buy whatever they want from wherever they can find the best deals. Stop micromanaging everything because you're terrified that your lower levels of managers will occasionally screw it up and make you look bad.

[Argus]

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.

What are the odds someone straight out of high school would be a better teacher in every conceivable, measurable way than someone with two masters degrees?

I'd say about even.

So why does your system, assume someone with 2 masters degrees is a better teacher?

Would we better off if all kindergarten teachers had doctorates?

Would they be better teachers if they had two doctorates?

[punked]

What are the odds someone straight out of high school would be a better teacher in every conceivable, measurable way than someone with two masters degrees?

I'd say about even.

So why does your system, assume someone with 2 masters degrees is a better teacher?

Would we better off if all kindergarten teachers had doctorates?

Would they be better teachers if they had two doctorates?

Well that is a decision that the population by in large has to make. There is no reason why we reward those with masters but the governments of most countries reward those who do. They encourage teachers through a pay scale increase to get them. I would hazard a guess that by in large the public agrees with this practice.

[Argus]

You know, if you want to stop outrageous acts by union leaders there is a reasonably simple solution.

The reason why some union organizations seem to be controlled by ideologues is that they are.

How come? Because almost none of the actual union membership pays much attention to the union, particularly in government unions. Most people don't even know who the people in the union leadership are. They've never spoken to one, never gone to a meeting - except the strike votes.

Who goes to the meetings? People who are angry, unhappy, pissed off. The agitated and agitators, and, because union leadership is now so much about various "causes" various activists.

The vast bulk of the membership has just about zero to do with the union.

The result is that the people who do become involved and who progress up to positions of responsibility, tend to be of a similar outlook on life.

Want to reform that? Reform the process wherby unions communicate with members and how the membership votes.

Currently, the union isn't allowed any communication with workers at the job site. No union notices can be distributed, no emails from the union can be sent, no union meetings held.

Let the government employer instead let the union into the building. Let them have an office. Let them hold meetings there. Provide a direct link to a union site on every PC whereby all commentary, complaint, and union votes can be registered from their desk. And encourage them to use it. Let union notices be distributed through emails. Get the membership involved in the union.

This would be to the benefit of the government and believe me, it would not please much of the current union leadership. They know very well why they have their jobs. They know very well they wouldn't hold them in the face of the attention of what is, generally speaking, a fairly moderate "electorate". Public service unions would have to abandon many of their more controversial ideological campaigns and restrict themselves more to serving the actual membership.

[Argus]

Well that is a decision that the population by in large has to make. There is no reason why we reward those with masters but the governments of most countries reward those who do. They encourage teachers through a pay scale increase to get them. I would hazard a guess that by in large the public agrees with this practice.

Nonsense. The public is divorced from the mechanics of these things. It has little to no say in how the education ministry or school boards decide on preferences for hiring and promotion. The only thing the public knows is that they are dissatisfied with the general level of the quality of their children's education.

No one ever asked ME if it was a good idea for someone teaching 3+4=7 to have a masters degree. If they had I would have laughed at them.

I remain convinced from my life experience that ability to teach is an innate skill set that some have and some don't. All that education is designed to help those who don't have such a skill to get by. But it also acts to screen out those who DO have it but can't afford the time and money to go get years and years of education. We'd be better off just hiring only those who DO.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Argus