Public Sector Unions

[Pliny]

Arthurdale seems like a poorly run project, but given the novelty of the situation, it's pretty much on track with, say, spending $1B on eHealth with no clear and appreciable result.

Sounds typical of a government run program.

Remember the Rasmussen report on Health care? Two years and fifteen million dollars later - there is a lack of resources. I offered to save them fourteen million and giver them the same results.

Incredibly, we actually have got better at delivering these things.

Wishful thinking in my estimation. Government has not gotten less greedy, nor less coercive.

Miners were making minimum wage, right through the 1950s in Virginia until the workers got together to form a combine (i.e. union) just as their bosses did.

Was this an injustice, Michael? I don't blame people for wanting more they have to demand more or they will not get anything more. Why should they pit themselves as opponents to the very company they work for? They need to differentiate between when it is necessary to appeal for fairness and justice and not bankrupt the company or make it an unviable enterprise that cannot weather competition or other adverse economic conditions.

Edited June 21, 2010 by Pliny

[Shwa]

How about within 1 standard deviation of comparable service ?

But what is that? You sound more like a civil servant than anyone else what with the big ideas, but the vagueness on the details. If you want to see where a govt project overruns cost, look at the details. It's all in the planning...

That seems reasonable, surely. We don't have that now, even if we are able to peer between the cracks of secrecy that erected.

Remember, it is a fallacy to blame your myopia on the object of your gaze.

Of course, as I have said, to achieve that the entire civil service needs to be replaced by a new service. I would have government providers encourage large professional service organizations to submit bids to provide competing services, with their own management and workforce. I would even create a separate board of directors for this new entity.

The price of silly dreams is free Michael, have at them at your leisure. When I was a kid, I had a large box full of all kinds of toy soldiers. I fought the War of 1812 many times on my back lawn or in the sandbox and the British won every battle. It didn't change the history books, but it was hours and hours of fun.

[Renegade]

In the end it comes down to "what plays in Oshawa". Gay marriage could perhaps have been mandated by the courts in 1982, if it had been pushed constitutionally.

"what plays in Oshawa"??? I don't understand the reference. In any case I get the gist of what you are saying. The fact that so mnay rights are left to the whim of the ruling group, has consistently resulted in injustices. The refusal to recognize gay marriage for so long is but one example.

I think that they are, aren't they ? Even enshrined freedoms are subject to interpretation by human judges.

They are only partially. One of the resaons the Charter is an imperfect document is that only some rights are recognized. Further, the Charter permits any right can be overridden by a government. Yes enshrined freedoms are subject to interpretation by humans, simply because there is no other impartial way to do so. We have gone through great lengths to insure the objectivity and impartiality of those interpreting those enshrined freedoms, but can never get away from the fact that the interpreters are human. If anyone has a more objective way to interpret enshrigned rights, I'd love to hear it.

And monarchy is better for some (the king) than others (pretty much everyone else)

A monarchy was an enshrined set of rules which favoured one (small) group. So we have changed the rules for another set of rules which favours a differnent (larger) group. Regardless, it still codefies favouritism into the system. My point is not to change who is favoured, but to eliminate the favouritism.

That sounds like a social program - remediating stupid people. Oh, sorry, you said choices. Well, they - stupid choices - continue to be made and I see the value in preventing people from making at least some of those choices.

Yes, we have discussed this before. You are in favour of preventing stupid choices even if it infringes on people's freedoms. I am not. The trouble with your position, is you do not explain the criteria of what stupid choices are permissable and which are not. Further what constitues a "stupid choice" is completely subjective. Forced conversion of natives to Christianity, and Residential Schools are some examples, of where the people with force thought there was value in preventing others from making "stupid choices". IMV what it means to be a civilized society is respecting some else's choice no matter who much you disagree with it.

[Shwa]

We have gone through great lengths to insure the objectivity and impartiality of those interpreting those enshrined freedoms, but can never get away from the fact that the interpreters are human. If anyone has a more objective way to interpret enshrigned rights, I'd love to hear it.

Computers programmed by dolphins?

[Michael Hardner]

Wishful thinking in my estimation. Government has not gotten less greedy, nor less coercive.

Sorry, I was speaking of the delivery of projects, in general. I suspect government is also better at certain things but this isn't likely a worthwhile topic for us to follow.

Was this an injustice, Michael? I don't blame people for wanting more they have to demand more or they will not get anything more. Why should they pit themselves as opponents to the very company they work for? They need to differentiate between when it is necessary to appeal for fairness and justice and not bankrupt the company or make it an unviable enterprise that cannot weather competition or other adverse economic conditions.

Why should they pit themselves as opponents to the very company they work for ? I don't know. That's your characterization, though, of them asking for what they see as a fair wage.

There are examples of people who demand that a company pay them an unviable amount. Everybody loses.

[Michael Hardner]

But what is that? You sound more like a civil servant than anyone else what with the big ideas, but the vagueness on the details. If you want to see where a govt project overruns cost, look at the details. It's all in the planning...

It depends on what we're talking about. Is it processing peoples' passport applications in an office ? Is it taking their drivers license pictures ? You can't expect me to give you numbers here, although I'm not sure that that is what you're asking.

Planning also involves the planning of planning. That means, you identify your inputs, the schedule for when the main planning phase ends, and how often the plans are updated moving forward, what will be measured and so on. Bad managers often use planning as an excuse to never make a decision, or never deliver.

Remember, it is a fallacy to blame your myopia on the object of your gaze.

Fine for you to say, since you're satisfied with telling people to file a FOI request if they want data. Look, we asked you for data and you gave us some. It was sparsely reported, and it indicated poor performance, and it was self-reported but that's what we have.

The price of silly dreams is free Michael, have at them at your leisure. When I was a kid, I had a large box full of all kinds of toy soldiers. I fought the War of 1812 many times on my back lawn or in the sandbox and the British won every battle. It didn't change the history books, but it was hours and hours of fun.

That's a cute story. It's a sad thing when responsive and efficient government is equated to being as possible as a child's fantasy, IMO.

With every post, you seem to add to my argument.

[Michael Hardner]

"what plays in Oshawa"??? I don't understand the reference. In any case I get the gist of what you are saying. The fact that so mnay rights are left to the whim of the ruling group, has consistently resulted in injustices. The refusal to recognize gay marriage for so long is but one example.

"What plays in Oshawa" as in - if it sounds good to the residents of an average town, then it has a better chance of happening.

They are only partially. One of the resaons the Charter is an imperfect document is that only some rights are recognized. Further, the Charter permits any right can be overridden by a government. Yes enshrined freedoms are subject to interpretation by humans, simply because there is no other impartial way to do so. We have gone through great lengths to insure the objectivity and impartiality of those interpreting those enshrined freedoms, but can never get away from the fact that the interpreters are human. If anyone has a more objective way to interpret enshrigned rights, I'd love to hear it.

I concur, and there isn't much else we can that we can do, since we are reliant on humans in the end.

But, to focus on my favourite subject, we could capitalize on new media to make our existing government systems better - see my posts and my blog about government open data for more on that. I don't think we need to change the system of government so much (as in, constitutional amendments for new voting systems, different rights, or PR and the like) but I would like to see execution of government services, and public consultation to use new media more.

A monarchy was an enshrined set of rules which favoured one (small) group. So we have changed the rules for another set of rules which favours a differnent (larger) group. Regardless, it still codefies favouritism into the system. My point is not to change who is favoured, but to eliminate the favouritism.

When you change the system, one group will prosper more from the changes than another. Therefore, there is always favouritism in any change. It's impossible to eliminate it.

Yes, we have discussed this before. You are in favour of preventing stupid choices even if it infringes on people's freedoms. I am not. The trouble with your position, is you do not explain the criteria of what stupid choices are permissable and which are not. Further what constitues a "stupid choice" is completely subjective. Forced conversion of natives to Christianity, and Residential Schools are some examples, of where the people with force thought there was value in preventing others from making "stupid choices". IMV what it means to be a civilized society is respecting some else's choice no matter who much you disagree with it.

But as you said before, it's impossible to eliminate the human element from that discussion, and impossible to codify those choices into law isn't it ?

[Renegade]

"What plays in Oshawa" as in - if it sounds good to the residents of an average town, then it has a better chance of happening.

OK. I understand, however I maintain that fundemental human rights and freedoms shouldn't depend upon the whims of "what plays in Oshawa".

When you change the system, one group will prosper more from the changes than another. Therefore, there is always favouritism in any change. It's impossible to eliminate it.

It is not the change you should look at to determine favouritism, it is the system as a whole. The starting point is irrelevant. A system which intervenes will necessarily favour one group over the other. The only way to eliminate this favouritism is to create as system which intervenes as little a possible.

You state that any change will prosper one group more than another. Of course this is true, but if your end goal is to create a system which favours no one, then those were previously favoured would be negatively impacted by the change. Don't focus on the starting point, focus on the end point. The delta isn't relevant.

But as you said before, it's impossible to eliminate the human element from that discussion, and impossible to codify those choices into law isn't it ?

You seek to codify permissable choices vs non-permitted choices into law far more than I do. It woudl have been nice if it was impossible, but the many laws which restrict choices prove that it is indeed very possible. That the human element is required, doesn't eliminate that IMV the ideal is to remove state intervention from personal choices. OK I agree that it requires a human arbiter to determine in some cases if the state has trangressed, but none of this changes the ideal.

Your argument amounts to what the practical obstacles are to implementing the ideal. I agree that there are practical obstacles, however this part of the discussion is moot, since we disagree on the ideal state.

[Renegade]

Computers programmed by dolphins?

I was thinking something more like MagicBall

[Michael Hardner]

OK. I understand, however I maintain that fundemental human rights and freedoms shouldn't depend upon the whims of "what plays in Oshawa".

They shouldn't, but they always have.

It is not the change you should look at to determine favouritism, it is the system as a whole. The starting point is irrelevant. A system which intervenes will necessarily favour one group over the other. The only way to eliminate this favouritism is to create as system which intervenes as little a possible.

And non-intervention also favours one group over the other. A system which intervenes as little as possible has been shown to be unpalatable to the majority, so they infringe on some rights to make it more acceptable to the whole.

The balance of what is and what is not controlled, what rights are fettered, what rights are completely free - that's the battle fought on these boards and everywhere every day.

You state that any change will prosper one group more than another. Of course this is true, but if your end goal is to create a system which favours no one, then those were previously favoured would be negatively impacted by the change. Don't focus on the starting point, focus on the end point. The delta isn't relevant.

A system that doesn't intervene isn't the same as a system that favours no one. For anarchy and lawlessness allows the strong to dominate the weak. So your theory then tells us that we need to protect individual safety, property and so on.

Then we end up with a situation where power starts to accumulate, with the rules set up to defend the property and safety of those in power.

You seek to codify permissable choices vs non-permitted choices into law far more than I do. It woudl have been nice if it was impossible, but the many laws which restrict choices prove that it is indeed very possible. That the human element is required, doesn't eliminate that IMV the ideal is to remove state intervention from personal choices. OK I agree that it requires a human arbiter to determine in some cases if the state has trangressed, but none of this changes the ideal.

Your argument amounts to what the practical obstacles are to implementing the ideal. I agree that there are practical obstacles, however this part of the discussion is moot, since we disagree on the ideal state.

I'm not sure that we disagree in the outcome we want though. Generally, maximum freedom and maximum ability to prosper.

But these things are both value-laden (Does 'freedom' mean the freedom to own weapons, freedom to have property, freedom to not starve ?) and temporal (free expression in 1776 happens via different technologies, and with different attendant rights than in 1976).

[Renegade]

They shouldn't, but they always have.

Yes they always have. That you agree that they shouldn't means you should also agree that we should strive toward a situation where the whims of the masses don't infringe on the freedoms of the indiviudal. Instruments such as the Charter, Bill of Rights, Constitutions are a measure in that direction. That many rights are not covered or are sitll subject to the whims of the masses means we still have a long way to go.

And non-intervention also favours one group over the other. A system which intervenes as little as possible has been shown to be unpalatable to the majority, so they infringe on some rights to make it more acceptable to the whole.

It should never be a requirement to be palatable to the majority, at least as to rights are concerened. In an Islamic society the majority may consider it unplatable that non-Musliims practice their religion. That they would infringe on the rights of others to conform to what they consider acceptable, doesn't excuse the egreious violation of rights.

A system that doesn't intervene isn't the same as a system that favours no one. For anarchy and lawlessness allows the strong to dominate the weak. So your theory then tells us that we need to protect individual safety, property and so on.

Then we end up with a situation where power starts to accumulate, with the rules set up to defend the property and safety of those in power.

I would rephrase what you have said to "A system that doesn't intervene isn't the same as a saying that no one is favoured." The difference is, it isn't the system that does the favouring. It is the inherent attributes of the individual which lead to a situation whether they will be favoured or not. That there would be "winners" and "losers" in a non-interventionist system is without doubt. The system should defend the property and safety for all, both those with power and those without power. That the "losers" end up with less property to defend doesn't indicate that the system is biased, any more than winners and loser in a track meet indicate that the track conditions are biased.

I'm not sure that we disagree in the outcome we want though. Generally, maximum freedom and maximum ability to prosper.

It wasn't clear to me that as an outcome you wanted. IMV the ability to prosper is a byproduct of maximium freedom, not an independant outcome.

But these things are both value-laden (Does 'freedom' mean the freedom to own weapons, freedom to have property, freedom to not starve ?) and temporal (free expression in 1776 happens via different technologies, and with different attendant rights than in 1976).

Yes it means all of those things with the only limiting factor being other people's equivalent rights. You woudl be free to own weapons if you could do so in a manner which doesn't threaten someone else's right to safety. Unfortunately the nature of weapons, doesn't make that possible. We can discuss all of these freedoms in detail, however they are not real freedoms if a society can override that freedom at will.

[Shwa]

I was thinking something more like MagicBall

Very Cool!!!!

I asked if MagicBall could be used as the substitute for human interpretation of rights and freedoms and it replied, "You may rely on it."

I think you have found the answer!

[Shwa]

It depends on what we're talking about. Is it processing peoples' passport applications in an office ? Is it taking their drivers license pictures ? You can't expect me to give you numbers here, although I'm not sure that that is what you're asking.

What I am asking you is to define "1 standard deviation of comparable service" and then relate that to replacing the public service with a mish-mash of private services and corporations. Fairly straight forward stuff Michael. I mean, you proposed quantifying government services, so please, do.

Planning also involves the planning of planning. That means, you identify your inputs, the schedule for when the main planning phase ends, and how often the plans are updated moving forward, what will be measured and so on. Bad managers often use planning as an excuse to never make a decision, or never deliver.

O course. And the planning of planning also requires planning. Then there is the requried planning of the planning of planning plan. That requires donuts.

Fine for you to say, since you're satisfied with telling people to file a FOI request if they want data.

Nope. I told you that if you cannot find the data you are looking for, then an ATI request might be an worthy route.

Look, we asked you for data and you gave us some.

Nope. You didn't ask. I supplied because you said you couldn't find any. I don't believe Argus gave a damn either way, so there was no "we" in this, it is just you.

It was sparsely reported, and it indicated poor performance, and it was self-reported but that's what we have.

Nope. The reports are extensive enough to satisfy most stakeholders; the performace indicated there is room for improvement; and who knows the steps actually taken for most of that data. Might need an ATI request to find out.

That's a cute story. It's a sad thing when responsive and efficient government is equated to being as possible as a child's fantasy, IMO.

Nope again Michael. My "cute story" was in response to your fantasy notion that the public service should be scrapped in favour of some vague mish-mash of private services and corporations. Everybody wants a philosopher king, but the devil is always in the details isn't it?

With every post, you seem to add to my argument.

There you go - implicating me in your opinion. Poor form bud. You may wish to contact your local MP or MPP and see what they have to say about your ideas. At least, in that way, there will be some weight to your argument other than usually light guy-on-the-internet-said type premise.

[Michael Hardner]

What I am asking you is to define "1 standard deviation of comparable service" and then relate that to replacing the public service with a mish-mash of private services and corporations. Fairly straight forward stuff Michael. I mean, you proposed quantifying government services, so please, do.

Still not sure what you're asking here. Comparable services need to be captured and defined departmentally, based on the service provided.

O course. And the planning of planning also requires planning. Then there is the requried planning of the planning of planning plan. That requires donuts.

Nope. I told you that if you cannot find the data you are looking for, then an ATI request might be an worthy route.

Ok - then I'm asking. Please give me some. Help me !

Part of providing good access is providing reports that people can find easily, and understand.

Nope. The reports are extensive enough to satisfy most stakeholders; the performace indicated there is room for improvement; and who knows the steps actually taken for most of that data. Might need an ATI request to find out.

Not good enough for me.

I will continue to explain to other stakeholders why the annual reporting of selective data showing crappy performance isn't good enough for me, and shouldn't be good enough for them.

Nope again Michael. My "cute story" was in response to your fantasy notion that the public service should be scrapped in favour of some vague mish-mash of private services and corporations. Everybody wants a philosopher king, but the devil is always in the details isn't it?

Yes. Generally, one looks at the situation and analyzes it, then comes up with a course of action. The problem is that people don't care enough about the details, and the details aren't readily available and easy understood. When they are available, the situation seems to be terrible. These are signs that things are bad, with the published reports showing very slow improvement.

Of course, you have figured out that you can point at the same things and say "see, nobody is upset" "there isn't enough data to say things are bad" "things are improving" !

You'll find that most people without a stake in these things won't agree with you, I think. That's why years of slow decline leads to people like Harris coming into office.

There you go - implicating me in your opinion. Poor form bud. You may wish to contact your local MP or MPP and see what they have to say about your ideas. At least, in that way, there will be some weight to your argument other than usually light guy-on-the-internet-said type premise.

As I already pointed out, contacting bureaucrats leads me nowhere.

Does anybody else out there have an opinion on how ours government perform in delivering services ? Also, please let us know if you are inside the system or outside.

[Shwa]

Ok - then I'm asking. Please give me some. Help me !

Come on, MLW is varied and wonderful. I don't have time to do your homework.

Part of providing good access is providing reports that people can find easily, and understand.

Agreed. But it doesn't matter how accessible the reports are, how easy they are to be found and understood if people don't take the time to actually look for them. Or read them. Or realize that some of the reporting is, ummm.... politically composed.

I will continue to explain to other stakeholders why the annual reporting of selective data showing crappy performance isn't good enough for me, and shouldn't be good enough for them.

The funny thing is, why would a department selectively self-report crappy performance data? Have you asked yourself than one yet? Union Carbide would never do that. GM didn't until it was forced to the brink financially. Interesting...

Yes. Generally, one looks at the situation and analyzes it, then comes up with a course of action. The problem is that people don't care enough about the details, and the details aren't readily available and easy understood. When they are available, the situation seems to be terrible. These are signs that things are bad, with the published reports showing very slow improvement.

But of course you will find that advocating for a complete scrapping of the public service for apparently poor HR practices is the ticket to ride. Maybe the Liberals should use this as a plank in an effort to disguise how awful Igantieff really is.

Of course, you have figured out that you can point at the same things and say "see, nobody is upset" "there isn't enough data to say things are bad" "things are improving" !

I haven't figured it out, I read about it in a Noam Chomsky book. The average baseball fan is fairly intelligent or at least intelligent enough to be able to compile or otherwise understand and appreciate statistics. Imagine that brainpower focused on the efficiency of government. Or the health system. Or fighting poverty. However, most of them would prefer to watch baseball games. Chomsky didn't direcly relate this to hockey in Canada. But I am sure you can.

You'll find that most people without a stake in these things won't agree with you, I think. That's why years of slow decline leads to people like Harris coming into office.

Every citizen has a stake in their government and their hiring practices. I am saying most likely won't or don't care enough to make any sort of practical or useful difference. Some will complain, some will write letters, some will bitch about it at the supper table. But most will just change the channel so they don't have to listen to it.

Is there a hockey game on?

[Michael Hardner]

Come on, MLW is varied and wonderful. I don't have time to do your homework.

Fine - my homework is to spend reasonable (which I would say is <5 minutes) time to find a report. If I can't find it, then I consider the data "difficult to find". My metric, my opinion.

If you disagree, then you need to show me that I'm wrong. I won't accept mythical reports that are "out there" because... I don't believe it.

Agreed. But it doesn't matter how accessible the reports are, how easy they are to be found and understood if people don't take the time to actually look for them. Or read them. Or realize that some of the reporting is, ummm.... politically composed.

Agreed. This is why I have to talk to people here, and also the more established media (I do this as well).

The funny thing is, why would a department selectively self-report crappy performance data? Have you asked yourself than one yet? Union Carbide would never do that. GM didn't until it was forced to the brink financially. Interesting...

Exactly correct. Thus, it is even more important for us to demand audited data, along with the demands that it's accessible, timely, and easy to read.

But of course you will find that advocating for a complete scrapping of the public service for apparently poor HR practices is the ticket to ride. Maybe the Liberals should use this as a plank in an effort to disguise how awful Igantieff really is.

Uh..... ok... did they hire him that way ?

I haven't figured it out, I read about it in a Noam Chomsky book. The average baseball fan is fairly intelligent or at least intelligent enough to be able to compile or otherwise understand and appreciate statistics. Imagine that brainpower focused on the efficiency of government. Or the health system. Or fighting poverty. However, most of them would prefer to watch baseball games. Chomsky didn't direcly relate this to hockey in Canada. But I am sure you can.

I submit that his complaint made more sense before the web existed. But, yes, I have made the same complaint myself. I think the market is there for something better than we have, but it's only a gut feeling.

Every citizen has a stake in their government and their hiring practices. I am saying most likely won't or don't care enough to make any sort of practical or useful difference. Some will complain, some will write letters, some will bitch about it at the supper table. But most will just change the channel so they don't have to listen to it.

Is there a hockey game on?

What jumps out to me is the fact that you said "change the channel" when we're talking about the web. In fact, the fact that you said that gives me hope. Web surfers are not TV watchers, thank god.

[Pliny]

Why should they pit themselves as opponents to the very company they work for ? I don't know. That's your characterization, though, of them asking for what they see as a fair wage.

Unions generally don't care about a fair wage. Otherwise they would know what it was and that it should be based upon the value of production.

Should Union members get an 8% increase in wages because they demand it and think it is reasonable. I understand the necessity to keep up with cost of living increases and inflation. Inflation is something the government imposes upon us.

If their production has increased 8% then they should get whatever percentage the value of that increased production produces in wealth and take into consideration the market circumstances and the capital needs of the company.

This is where public unions are really flawed. There is no measure of the value of production as there is no direct production of wealth. Government does not sell anything it produces for a real cost. It gets it's money from taxes and pays itself and those employed out of those taxes without any way to measure the value of the work produced and thus no means to determine the payscale.

The best paying jobs now are government jobs because they are only measured against standard of living and are not tied to any kindo of production whatsoever.

[charter.rights]

Unions generally don't care about a fair wage. Otherwise they would know what it was and that it should be based upon the value of production.

Should Union members get an 8% increase in wages because they demand it and think it is reasonable. I understand the necessity to keep up with cost of living increases and inflation. Inflation is something the government imposes upon us.

If their production has increased 8% then they should get whatever percentage the value of that increased production produces in wealth and take into consideration the market circumstances and the capital needs of the company.

This is where public unions are really flawed. There is no measure of the value of production as there is no direct production of wealth. Government does not sell anything it produces for a real cost. It gets it's money from taxes and pays itself and those employed out of those taxes without any way to measure the value of the work produced and thus no means to determine the payscale.

The best paying jobs now are government jobs because they are only measured against standard of living and are not tied to any kindo of production whatsoever.

Maybe the unions should take as profit sharing the amounts that their company CEOs and CFOs award themselves every year? Would that be better?

[Pliny]

Maybe the unions should take as profit sharing the amounts that their company CEOs and CFOs award themselves every year? Would that be better?

Firstly, if there were any desire to reach understanding then falsehoods like CEOs' and CFO's "awarding themselves" amounts of money every year must be put aside. They have a negotiated contract just like the Union. Don't like your Union agreement? Negotiate your own.

Maybe if Unions and CEOs weren't at loggerheads it would be better. Perhaps Unions should understand economics a little so they can guarantee jobs will last more than a generation.

I won't deny that corporate boards of directors and shareholders may have as much understanding of Economics as Union contract negotiators, and actually a constantly inflated paper fiat currency contributes to uncertainty and even greater demands for security in pay, benefits and entitlements.

[Michael Hardner]

Should Union members get an 8% increase in wages because they demand it and think it is reasonable. I understand the necessity to keep up with cost of living increases and inflation. Inflation is something the government imposes upon us.

If their production has increased 8% then they should get whatever percentage the value of that increased production produces in wealth and take into consideration the market circumstances and the capital needs of the company.

What is this matter of they "should" ? It's more what they can get. Nobody is dictating what the producers "should" get for their product.

Fairness has nothing to do with it, except that everybody sees it as fair that they get more - labour and ownership.

This is where public unions are really flawed. There is no measure of the value of production as there is no direct production of wealth. Government does not sell anything it produces for a real cost. It gets it's money from taxes and pays itself and those employed out of those taxes without any way to measure the value of the work produced and thus no means to determine the payscale.

The best paying jobs now are government jobs because they are only measured against standard of living and are not tied to any kindo of production whatsoever.

Government didn't always pay the best, though. It's more because of the value of labour peace to politicians, IMO. You can measure the value of their work, though, by comparing them to private sector workers who do roughly the same thing.

[charter.rights]

Firstly, if there were any desire to reach understanding then falsehoods like CEOs' and CFO's "awarding themselves" amounts of money every year must be put aside. They have a negotiated contract just like the Union. Don't like your Union agreement? Negotiate your own.

Maybe if Unions and CEOs weren't at loggerheads it would be better. Perhaps Unions should understand economics a little so they can guarantee jobs will last more than a generation.

I won't deny that corporate boards of directors and shareholders may have as much understanding of Economics as Union contract negotiators, and actually a constantly inflated paper fiat currency contributes to uncertainty and even greater demands for security in pay, benefits and entitlements.

Ah...but what it has been suggested that unions serve no purpose and are over paid. I simply drew a parallel and you now suggest that it is OK because they have a negotiated contract.

And the measure that you claim does not exist for public sector unions neither exists for CEOs and CFOs. Simply meeting some imaginary targets for huge bonus is pretty simply thinking.

During my days as president, steward and negotiator for a CUPE local, we saved the government so much that we avoided having to take "Rae Days". However, the managers and directors did not make such sacrifices. We were fully aware of the costs to the "Organization" whenever we made requests for improvements in pay or benefits. The net increases while setting out to meet inflationary costs ended up costing very little in terms of the overall budget. But the Directors bonuses serving fewer people cost as much, if not more, since their annual increases (on top of their bonuses) were indexed according to the union rates. How's that for cheating the system?

Edited June 22, 2010 by charter.rights

[Renegade]

Maybe the unions should take as profit sharing the amounts that their company CEOs and CFOs award themselves every year? Would that be better?

So, what stops the unions from asking for it?

[charter.rights]

So, what stops the unions from asking for it?

Managers who think it will cut into their personal fortunes.

[Renegade]

Managers who think it will cut into their personal fortunes.

Er no. Managers have no power to stop the union from asking for anything they want. So try again.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Renegade

[charter.rights]

Er no. Managers have no power to stop the union from asking for anything they want. So try again.

You wanna bet. I've been there and they control what gets to the Directors. Negotiation isn't just about asking / demanding changes.