Jump to content

Public Sector Unions


Recommended Posts

I am not dismissive of "the information." I am dismissive of your "concern."

What's the difference ?

The information should reasonably cause concern. So you're NOT dismissing the information, but saying I shouldn't be concerned ?

What I meant by "participating" is "concern" enough - as a member of the public - to generate some actual action as opposed to making simple statements about complex issues which ends up sounding like helpless whining. For instance, why not contact your MP or MPP with your discoveries about hiring metrics in the government, engage them in a dialogue and then report on that dialogue here for discussion. I am certain that your local reps will agree with you that something needs to be done. But what exactly? Strike down the PSEA in one fell swoop?

The complex issues thing is a smokescreen. An insurance company tried to tell me that they took 2 weeks to get back to me because they're "very busy and process thousands of claims". It doesn't wash.

What action can I do other than point out to my fellow citizens that our government is utterly failing at providing services at reasonable efficiency and, likely cost ?

Why not contact my MP ? I suppose I could do that. I have contacted various officials via email and had, in many cases, no response at all. Why discuss it here ? Hmmm.... Because this is a web board where we ostensibly discuss issues ?

What exactly is to be done: contract out as many services as feasible, that's what. The more you push back on this point, the more energy it gives me to convince my fellow left-of-centre colleagues that that is necessary.

Then so the cancer would be as well, but from your "concern" it doesn't appear that you believe even your own assertion. :P

Well, you did kill my analogy with that point. :D

Shwa, you and I are basically on the same side of the political spectrum but your arguments are so tepid, that I am not even convinced of your objectivity.

Left-of-centre posters should realize that the gains that could come from contracting out could increase the amount of resources that go to social programs themselves.

This is my new crusade, thanks to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 279
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What's the difference ?

The information should reasonably cause concern. So you're NOT dismissing the information, but saying I shouldn't be concerned ?

I am not saying or making you do anything. If you are concerned, good for you. What I am saying is that perhaps the resultant energies from this concern might better be used to develop a deeper understanding of the actual issues.

The complex issues thing is a smokescreen. An insurance company tried to tell me that they took 2 weeks to get back to me because they're "very busy and process thousands of claims". It doesn't wash.

Gawd, now I understand your keen interest in health care wait times. Good thing you are not up for brain surgery! :lol:

What action can I do other than point out to my fellow citizens that our government is utterly failing at providing services at reasonable efficiency and, likely cost ?

Why not contact my MP ? I suppose I could do that. I have contacted various officials via email and had, in many cases, no response at all.

Because what you are actually doing is pointing out your opinion "...that our government...etc." As for proof of utter failure, well, you haven't done that.

What exactly is to be done: contract out as many services as feasible, that's what. The more you push back on this point, the more energy it gives me to convince my fellow left-of-centre colleagues that that is necessary.

Actually I believe that sort of attitude is prevalent in the provincial and federal governments. That is, they are already doing this or at least looking at it. There are risks associated with it of course, but you never know until you try. Where the government fails in this sort of thing - along with many other "projects" is they fail the contingency test. You know: fail to plan then plan to fail.

Shwa, you and I are basically on the same side of the political spectrum but your arguments are so tepid, that I am not even convinced of your objectivity.

Unclean and tepid. You got me nailed right there. :P

Left-of-centre posters should realize that the gains that could come from contracting out could increase the amount of resources that go to social programs themselves.

Yep, that is the usual rationalization. Providing there are proven gains from contracting out. But to find out you would have to do a little digging. Not recommended for those who don't like to get their hands dirty with the detail.

This is my new crusade, thanks to you.
:lol:

Figures. Unclean, tepid and now to-blame for Michael Hardner's latest crusade. I officially apologize to all MLW posters now: Sorry about that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying or making you do anything. If you are concerned, good for you. What I am saying is that perhaps the resultant energies from this concern might better be used to develop a deeper understanding of the actual issues.

I don't know how I would do that, though. There's no more statistics available that I can see, and I understand the business side from my own experience in business. This experience is also what makes me reject (when it is used) the "it's complicated" line of defense that one sees from time to time.

Gawd, now I understand your keen interest in health care wait times. Good thing you are not up for brain surgery! :lol:

Kind of an ad hominem there. "It's complicated" is another way for people to say "go away". A company that manages thousands of requests should be better equipped to handle inquiries than a smaller company because... well... that's what they do right ?

McDonald's doesn't say "sorry, your burger takes an hour because we are SOOOO busy", they say "billions and billions served".

Because what you are actually doing is pointing out your opinion "...that our government...etc." As for proof of utter failure, well, you haven't done that.

Well, I suppose it is my OPINION that government should be almost as efficient as business and your OPINION that it's not at all necessary.

I am interested in how the average left-of-centre person reacts to the information the PSC has provided, so I will be talking about this and recording the reactions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) True. "Negotiate contracts"....ha ha.

I've even had debates with self-styled "free marketers"--often code for "Dewy-eyed worshippers of wealthy and powerful men"--who informed me, that when I got hired at WalMart a few years back, I was "negotiating my contract with them." :)

"Negotiating" meaning that they lay out undebatable terms, and I could accept them or walk away.

And whatever one wants to say about this process, it is NOT "negotiation."

Not only does "economics trump virtue," as one of our posters claims; economics also trumps actual definitions and meanings of words.

How did you feel when you were an "associate" of Wal-Mart?

Did you feel that being an "associate",you could go down the Bentonville,Arkansas and calmly discuss workplace issues with your feelow "associates",The Walton family?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you feel when you were an "associate" of Wal-Mart?

Did you feel that being an "associate",you could go down the Bentonville,Arkansas and calmly discuss workplace issues with your feelow "associates",The Walton family?

:)

Oh, sure! They had it all worked out:

You could go talk to a supervisor (basically a "manager" getting paid about a dollar more an hour than yourself); and he or she would likely commiserate, sincerely even, but be able to do nothing.

Next step was the "open door policy," in which you could go talk to any member of the store hierarchy--not a bad idea, by the way, but ultimately fruitless for anything beyond safety issues or problems with another emplo....I mean "associate."

Problems with store policy? Awesome! The door is thataway, son, see you around.

To be fair, because of the widespread controversy over treatment of workers, Wal-Mart has improved in this regard. Now they're about as crappy employers as other retailers, instead of their old policy of being worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:)

Oh, sure! They had it all worked out:

You could go talk to a supervisor (basically a "manager" getting paid about a dollar more an hour than yourself); and he or she would likely commiserate, sincerely even, but be able to do nothing.

Next step was the "open door policy," in which you could go talk to any member of the store hierarchy--not a bad idea, by the way, but ultimately fruitless for anything beyond safety issues or problems with another emplo....I mean "associate."

Problems with store policy? Awesome! The door is thataway, son, see you around.

To be fair, because of the widespread controversy over treatment of workers, Wal-Mart has improved in this regard. Now they're about as crappy employers as other retailers, instead of their old policy of being worse.

Well...It should be plainly obvious to anyine that WalMart truly cares about its "associates" in compassionate,familylike way....

Did you know that Walmart has a thuglike rat squad they fly aroud to intimidate any "asscoiates" who feel they've been mistreated and want to fight back collectively?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Negotiating" meaning that they lay out undebatable terms, and I could accept them or walk away.

And whatever one wants to say about this process, it is NOT "negotiation."

Oh I see, it wasn't fair, like life.

You had nothing to offer them except your carcass, like many applicants.What did you expect?

But do not apply your lack of skills, education and experience to everybody in every job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Renegade, this is exactly how corporations work these days, however. Corporations have been given " rights " , and they are collectives, yet employees have not one iota of ability to demand to negotiate their contracts with their individual employers, the individual shareholders, yet by your own description that is the only thing that would be right. Our entire system is built this way. So why should only one side of the coin get all the rules in their favour?

I really don't see what you are saying. Virtually every private employee has the abilty to negotiate their compensation. I personally have negotiated my own compensation with each and every company I have ever worked for. Ultimately if I and the company cannot come to terms which are agreeable to both, we walk away from the deal. I really don't understand your POV that "one side of the coin get all the rules in their favour". Care to elaborate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what he's saying is that unions should be more like company run workers organizations that basically rubber stamp everything any company does...

Y'know..Corporate lapdogs..

Then you think wrong. Unions should have NO obligation to accept the company position. They can demand whatever they want. But just as a union has no obligation to accept the company offer, the company should have no obligation to accept the union offer.

If they can't come to a deal, workers who wish to be represeted by a union, can go find jobs at another company that they can come to terms with, and the company should be able to find and hire workers they can come to terms with.

Edited by Renegade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Negotiating" meaning that they lay out undebatable terms, and I could accept them or walk away.

And whatever one wants to say about this process, it is NOT "negotiation."

Huh? You are quite wrong. It absolutely is negotiation. You too can set undebatable terms for your employment and set it to Walmart as a "take it or leave it" offer.

Every contract is the process of finding terms which are beneficial to both parties. If this cannot be accomplished the only acceptable alternative is for either party to walk away from the deal.

Do you expect as a labourer to have the power of the state to hold you to terms of labour you do not agree with? That would be forced labour, not much differnt than slavery. If you don't expect the state power to be used to coercively force contract terms upon you, why should state power be used to coercively force terms upon an employer?

Edited by Renegade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you think wrong. Unions should have NO obligation to accept the company position. They can demand whatever they want. But just as a union has no obligation to accept the company offer, the company should have no obligation to accept the union offer.

If they can't come to a deal, workers who wish to be represeted by a union, can go find jobs at another company that they can come to terms with, and the company should be able to find and hire workers they can come to terms with.

What about unions that bend over backs and give up alot like 40 million dollars worth and the comapny wants more or they will move out of the country? Companies have to bargain in GOOD FAITH, most do but, there`s always a couple who don`t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about unions that bend over backs and give up alot like 40 million dollars worth and the comapny wants more or they will move out of the country?

So what if the company wants to move out of the country? If the conditions are not to the union's liking, let them move out of the country and let the union members find other employment which offer conditions they are willing to accept. The fact that unions are willing to give up compensation is not because they have some kind of irrational love for the company, it is because they prefer the offered conditions to unemployment

Companies have to bargain in GOOD FAITH, most do but, there`s always a couple who don`t.

Exactly the same things can be said for Unions.

Edited by Renegade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't see what you are saying. Virtually every private employee has the abilty to negotiate their compensation. I personally have negotiated my own compensation with each and every company I have ever worked for. Ultimately if I and the company cannot come to terms which are agreeable to both, we walk away from the deal. I really don't understand your POV that "one side of the coin get all the rules in their favour". Care to elaborate?

What I am saying is that shareholders employ a proxy, the company they own, in order to negotiate contracts. If A, B, and C are partners in a company with equal shares, an employee, D, does not get to say, " I want to negotiate the third of my salary each of you is responsible for individually. " They band together and negotiate a single contract. However, they in turn get to say to employees E, F, and G, who want to form a union, " We want to negotiate your contracts seperately. " Why are employer unions so kosher with you? Have you ever seriously thought about the implications of the collective nature of most corporations? Because it mirrors unions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if the company wants to move out of the country? If the conditions are not to the union's liking, let them move out of the country and let the union members find other employment which offer conditions they are willing to accept. The fact that unions are willing to give up compensation is not because they have some kind of irrational love for the company, it is because they prefer the offered conditions to unemployment

Yes. People will endure a lot to feed their families.

Mines which habitually had deadly accidents never had a problem finding employees. Hazardous factories never had to worry about searching out employees. People would die in accidents, or die early from the cumulative effects of various poisons they endured during their working lives, and yet, the companies were still able to find employees.

And there has always been a mentality which said "Why is it our business if people are dying in mines? They know it's dangerous. If they don't like it, they can just work somewhere else."

But society decided it had an interest in defending the safety of workers - even if those workers were willing to risk that safety. Society said it would order the mines and factories to provide a safe workplace anyway.

We could get rid of all the unions, get rid of all the restrictions, let the corporations hire people as cheaply as they can, for as little or no benefits, with whatever risk they want. That is the libertarian philosophy of "every man for himself". Wages will sink and benefits fade, but you believe you'll be okay, so you don't care.

Personally, I can't find any logical or coherent argument which says that society will be better off if corporations can race each other downwards to provide the lowest possible wages and benefits, or get upset that unions are getting in the way of such freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that shareholders employ a proxy, the company they own, in order to negotiate contracts. If A, B, and C are partners in a company with equal shares, an employee, D, does not get to say, " I want to negotiate the third of my salary each of you is responsible for individually. " They band together and negotiate a single contract.

Well, as I have consistently said, an employee is free to designate another party to negotiate on his behalf. I have no issue with this. However, an employer should have the option to refuse to negotiate with that party if they so choose.

After all, if an employee insist he must negotiate with the shareholders, and the company doesn't provide him access to the shareholders, then the employee is free to not enter into a contract with the company and go find another company where he can netotiate directly with the shareholder (like a sole propritorship).

If an employee has the right to refuse to deal with a representative he accepts, why should a company not have the same option?

However, they in turn get to say to employees E, F, and G, who want to form a union, " We want to negotiate your contracts seperately. "

Yes the do, in the same way an employee can determine who he negotiates with or abandon the netotiation.

Why are employer unions so kosher with you?

What employeer unions are you taking about? Most shareholders appoint representatives to negotiate on their behalf because it is impractical to do it any other way. In fact there is a cost involved in creating a middle man to negotiate compensation with employees. It is overhead that shareholders woudl avoid if they could. Where an organization is small enough the middle-man is often cut out and the main shareholder negotiates with the employee.

The company appoints a representative to negotiate on its behalf because of logistic need. An employee appoints a representative because he believes he will get an ecoomic advantage from it. Both are valid reasons, however the other party should not be forced to deal with the represnative if he doesn't choose to. He has the option of walking away and dealing with another party.

Have you ever seriously thought about the implications of the collective nature of most corporations? Because it mirrors unions.

Actually I have. I have repeatedly suggested that I support the right of an employee to form a collective, however I believe the same freedoms extended to an employee should be extended to the employer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. People will endure a lot to feed their families.

Mines which habitually had deadly accidents never had a problem finding employees. Hazardous factories never had to worry about searching out employees. People would die in accidents, or die early from the cumulative effects of various poisons they endured during their working lives, and yet, the companies were still able to find employees.

And there has always been a mentality which said "Why is it our business if people are dying in mines? They know it's dangerous. If they don't like it, they can just work somewhere else."

But society decided it had an interest in defending the safety of workers - even if those workers were willing to risk that safety. Society said it would order the mines and factories to provide a safe workplace anyway.

We could get rid of all the unions, get rid of all the restrictions, let the corporations hire people as cheaply as they can, for as little or no benefits, with whatever risk they want. That is the libertarian philosophy of "every man for himself". Wages will sink and benefits fade, but you believe you'll be okay, so you don't care.

Personally, I can't find any logical or coherent argument which says that society will be better off if corporations can race each other downwards to provide the lowest possible wages and benefits, or get upset that unions are getting in the way of such freedom.

As you acknowlege, "soceity" intervenes to determine the best interests of workers to even override a worker's own choices. IMV, taking away peoples choices doesn't make for a "better" society. What is better for some is worse for others. Union legislation beneits the unskilled labour and commodity labour. It is detrimental to consumers and shareholders.

You don't find a logical argument because you have a subjective view of what constitutes a better society. I have a different view.

I don't ask to impose my view on you, and I ask that you don't impose yours on me. However that doesn't work in your construct, as in order to impose your view of a "better" society, you MUST use coercion and impose it on others.

Edited by Renegade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you acknowlege, "soceity" intervenes to determine the best interests of workers to even override a worker's own choices. IMV, taking away peoples choices doesn't make for a "better" society.

Oh don't be silly. Society overrides people's personal choices all the time. That's what being in a society means - it means foregoing the absolute freedom to do anything you want, and living according to the tenets of that society. Want to walk around naked? You can do that if you live in the woods alone, but not if you're part of a society living amongst others. Want to open your beer can with a hand gun? Sure, go for it, in the deep woods. But if you're around other people, they won't let you. Want to beat your children? Rape your dog? Society says no. You aren't allowed to kill yourself either. You're not allowed to do stupid crap that will hurt only you. As, for example, if you want to climb up the side of the CN tower at night - the cops will stop you.

I mean, what do you think society is anyway? It's a whole bunch of people who live together, and who decide in what way they can coexist, and what rules they'll all live by. You don't like those rules, head out into the deep woods.

And yes, coercion is always at the bottom of all laws, rules, bylaws, or whatever. Because you have to have something to stop people from speeding, from building houses wherever they want, from throwing their garbage wherever they want, or from mooning the neighbours out his front window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you think wrong. Unions should have NO obligation to accept the company position. They can demand whatever they want. But just as a union has no obligation to accept the company offer, the company should have no obligation to accept the union offer.

If they can't come to a deal, workers who wish to be represeted by a union, can go find jobs at another company that they can come to terms with, and the company should be able to find and hire workers they can come to terms with.

They are'nt under any obligation to accept any contract offer...

That's why they can lock out employee's once a contract is up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. People will endure a lot to feed their families.

Mines which habitually had deadly accidents never had a problem finding employees. Hazardous factories never had to worry about searching out employees. People would die in accidents, or die early from the cumulative effects of various poisons they endured during their working lives, and yet, the companies were still able to find employees.

And there has always been a mentality which said "Why is it our business if people are dying in mines? They know it's dangerous. If they don't like it, they can just work somewhere else."

But society decided it had an interest in defending the safety of workers - even if those workers were willing to risk that safety. Society said it would order the mines and factories to provide a safe workplace anyway.

We could get rid of all the unions, get rid of all the restrictions, let the corporations hire people as cheaply as they can, for as little or no benefits, with whatever risk they want. That is the libertarian philosophy of "every man for himself". Wages will sink and benefits fade, but you believe you'll be okay, so you don't care.

Personally, I can't find any logical or coherent argument which says that society will be better off if corporations can race each other downwards to provide the lowest possible wages and benefits, or get upset that unions are getting in the way of such freedom.

Wow Argus!!!!

I never would have thought you would have said something like that...

I'm pleasantly shocked...

By the way,we still do have people dying in mines...West VA and Kentucky this spring alone...All in RTW states...Let's not get into the Chinese coal mine aituation...

You've precisely pointed out the selfish,self interested,me first and eff everyone else,free market fallacy that alot of people have bought into..

RTW is simply the legislated Right to Work for less...It's a devolution of the standard of living dressed up as personal freedom...

And there's people who defend this as fair...

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh don't be silly. Society overrides people's personal choices all the time. That's what being in a society means - it means foregoing the absolute freedom to do anything you want, and living according to the tenets of that society. Want to walk around naked? You can do that if you live in the woods alone, but not if you're part of a society living amongst others. Want to open your beer can with a hand gun? Sure, go for it, in the deep woods. But if you're around other people, they won't let you. Want to beat your children? Rape your dog? Society says no. You aren't allowed to kill yourself either. You're not allowed to do stupid crap that will hurt only you. As, for example, if you want to climb up the side of the CN tower at night - the cops will stop you.

I mean, what do you think society is anyway? It's a whole bunch of people who live together, and who decide in what way they can coexist, and what rules they'll all live by. You don't like those rules, head out into the deep woods.

And yes, coercion is always at the bottom of all laws, rules, bylaws, or whatever. Because you have to have something to stop people from speeding, from building houses wherever they want, from throwing their garbage wherever they want, or from mooning the neighbours out his front window.

I commend you Argus for getting to the heart of the matter quickly. Something none of the other pro-union posters seem to be able to do. They seem to deny that there is coercion in society to favour certain groups.

What you outline is your view of society. The problem with your view of "whole bunch of people who live together, and who decide in what way they can coexist, and what rules they'll all live by" is that the "whole bunch of people" are not unaamious in their agreement. They generally will force a subset of people to live under their rules of coexistance. Those rules will generally go far beyond coexistance. I can see your argument for rules where the behaviour of one affects the freedoms and rights for another, however when you go beyond that, where exactly does it stop? If 10 people are in a group, and 6 people decide that the "rules for coexistance" mean that everyone should have equal assets, does it affect the rights of the 4 people who's assets will be seized? Most definitely.

Ultimately I'm not arguing that rules should not exsist. They most definitely should. But the rules should be constrained by indiviudal rights. Freedom of association and freedom to contract with whomever I choose should be one of the rights. This whole conversation within this thread was brought by a pro-union poster claiming the right of "freedom of association" . If that is indeed a right, that freedom should apply to all, employer and employee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how I would do that, though. There's no more statistics available that I can see, and I understand the business side from my own experience in business. This experience is also what makes me reject (when it is used) the "it's complicated" line of defense that one sees from time to time.

It is interesting that you would reject the it's-complicate line of defense yet readily admit to not being able to "see" how you would go about getting more statistics or accessing more information. Surely in your business experience you enounter the saying that 'the devil is in the details?' If not, you may want to look that idiom up.

Kind of an ad hominem there. "It's complicated" is another way for people to say "go away". A company that manages thousands of requests should be better equipped to handle inquiries than a smaller company because... well... that's what they do right ?

"It's complicated" is another way of saying that perhaps there is actually more to the plan than that contained in the executive summary. Besides, what companies do you know that handle Indian Land Claims, issues Canadian passports or collects taxes?

McDonald's doesn't say "sorry, your burger takes an hour because we are SOOOO busy", they say "billions and billions served".

Yes. Let's run the federal and provincial bureaucracies like McDonalds. The fast-food answer to the fast-food generation. Although I would tend to treat municipal bureaucracies more like Harveys. A Beautiful Thing.

Well, I suppose it is my OPINION that government should be almost as efficient as business and your OPINION that it's not at all necessary.

Efficient like GM, Rogers, Bell? How about as efficient as British Petroleum? Or Union Carbide? The federal bureaucracies are not Home Depot or Walmart. Or McDonalds. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you outline is your view of society. The problem with your view of "whole bunch of people who live together, and who decide in what way they can coexist, and what rules they'll all live by" is that the "whole bunch of people" are not unaamious in their agreement. They generally will force a subset of people to live under their rules of coexistance.

Naturally. But any group or organization is like that, any club, fraternity, or for that matter, employer.

Those rules will generally go far beyond coexistance. I can see your argument for rules where the behaviour of one affects the freedoms and rights for another, however when you go beyond that, where exactly does it stop?

There are a number of rules and laws which you can fairly easily see as justifiable in that ones right to, for example, murder ones neighbour would be a violation of the neighbours rights. However, not all law is about preserving rights. Building codes would be an example of the second kind of law/rule. Whose rights does it preserve? Well, no ones. What it does is to reassure people that when they enter or buy a dwelling or building that the person who constructed it had to do so with a certain measure of safety in mind.

Now to the libertarian mind that sort of law is not necessary. Builders who construct buildings which fall down will be sued (at the victim's expense, of course) and put out of business or otherwise punished. But this is very much a hit and miss approach. A blanket code stating how buildings must be constructed to preserve safety is simply a lot better for a society as a whole. It tends to help prevent collapses rather than the libertarian solution of punishing people afterwards.

Most laws of this nature are about smoothing out the rougher edges of what society would otherwise be. And so too are unions and laws which support them. They're about smoothing out what would otherwise be a very one-sided relationship between an employer and his employees. Although I've had my problems with unions in the past, overall, this works to the benefit of the employees.

And yes, this certainly can work to the detriment of the employer. To some extent one could say that was unfair, that an employer ought to be able to hire and fire and promote however the employer chooses, ought to be able to offer up whatever working conditions and treatment and pay they desire on a take-it-or-leave-it approach. I perfectly understand that belief and it's reasonable, on the surface.

But we know - we KNOW - that this approach would inevitably lead to myriad cases of horrible abuse of every kind, to massive safety issues, sexual harassment (not the phony kind but the genuine old fashioned, bend-over-or-you're-fired kind) and abuse, threatening conduct towards people who are not psychologically or economically set up to resist it. And so society puts in places myriad rules and laws to check the power of employers, including safety and human rights rules, and yes, laws favoring unions.

Overall, workers in area where unions are strong are better off than areas where they are weak. Overall. That isn't to say there aren't some really crummy unions out there, but I've already stated how that could be changed.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What employeer unions are you taking about?

What I mean by " employer union " is any company that hires or delegates other people to negotiate on behalf of multiple shareholders. Just as an " employee union " hires or delegates other people to negotiate on behalf of multiple workers.

The company appoints a representative to negotiate on its behalf because of logistic need. An employee appoints a representative because he believes he will get an ecoomic advantage from it. Both are valid reasons, however the other party should not be forced to deal with the represnative if he doesn't choose to. He has the option of walking away and dealing with another party.

There is a logistic need - but it conveniently happens to concentrate the influence of all of the shareholders, which makes for a much more powerful bargaining position. You cannot pretend it does not give companies an economic advantage over employees (at least those who are not unionized). As well, why do you not think it is logistically significant if a company with 10,000 employees negotiates all of their contracts seperately?

Actually I have. I have repeatedly suggested that I support the right of an employee to form a collective, however I believe the same freedoms extended to an employee should be extended to the employer.

Freedoms are only as good as the opportunities attached to them. Employers enjoy more effective freedoms than employees when the company is monolithic and the employees are not. For a company with many employees, the cost of losing one or two employees so that they can belligerently negotiate contracts is trivial. The cost to an employee of losing their job is not. The only way to balance this situation, where employers ordinarily face no risk, and employees face great risk, is to allow employee unions to wield some similar powers to the company themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bribing the henchmen tax collectors was unseemly - provincal collectors lost their jobs and got a 45 thousand dollar package-- and went directly to being federally harmonized collectors..in effect not losing their jobs...I guess now that these collectors got a "gift" they will collect with much more vigor and not fail their masters in the continued abuse and betryal of their fellow Canadians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...