Postal Strike Imminent

[TimG]

That's a pretty low bar you set for 'greed'. Used to be they had to be greedy if they made outrageous demands. Now they're greedy if they won't surrender what they have and take lower wages and benefits.

The benefits they negotiated in the past are now outrageous by any reasonable measure. Refusing to change those benefits is pure greed.

I personally don't know anyone in the private sector who is in the same job but had to take a wage cut. There might be some people whose income is based on sales or such, but most people are making the same as they were last year and the year before, unless they lost their jobs.

That is the point: in the private sector companies go under, people get fired and then rehired at a lower rate. The aggregate result is a decrease in private sector compensation. Public sector unions have no check on their demands because their employer cannot go bankrupt.

[Shwa]

The benefits they negotiated in the past are now outrageous by any reasonable measure. Refusing to change those benefits is pure greed.

Then provide us with an objective, reasonable and ideology-free "measure" with which we can use to make these scientific determinations of "pure greed." Do you have one for 'pure lust' and one for 'pure wrath' too? A sevendeadlysinsometer or something?

That is the point: in the private sector companies go under, people get fired and then rehired at a lower rate. The aggregate result is a decrease in private sector compensation. Public sector unions have no check on their demands because their employer cannot go bankrupt.

Except, duh, they can be legislated back to work and have binding arbitration forced on them. Does the name Jean Claude-Parrot ring a bell?

But nevermind the fact that Canada Post is turning a profit, right Tim? Don't let facts get in the way...

[Shwa]

Red herring alert!!

In any case, the true cost of mail would be evident instead of hidden in the layers of politics, subsidy and privilege that exists today.

'nuff said.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I am saying pubic sector unions should see wages and benefit rollbacks to match what people in the private sector are facing.

The problem is that so many public positions require professional training, either college or university. Especially when talking about federal and provincial (Nursing, Teachers, Doctors, Accountants, etc)

The average private sector wage includes teenagers working part-time for entertainment and education money.

The average private sector wage include people who work at McDonald's and Walmart. People who essentially threw their life away with bad decisions or inability.

The average private sector wage does not factor in the huge, unreported under the table income earned in the private sector.

I bet, that if you factor in the examples I list above the average wage of public sector and private sector would be pretty close.

Edited June 1, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[TimG]

Then provide us with an objective, reasonable and ideology-free "measure" with which we can use to make these scientific determinations of "pure greed."

Not too hard. Simply compare what people with a similar skill set would get in a private sector jobs. You will find that postal workers are grossly overpaid.

Except, duh, they can be legislated back to work and have binding arbitration forced on them.

Binding arbitration which usually gives them overly generous settlements.

But nevermind the fact that Canada Post is turning a profit, right Tim? Don't let facts get in the way...

So what? They have a monopoly. They can charge whatever they want to cover costs. End the monopoly.

[TimG]

The problem is that so many public positions require professional training, either college or university. Especially when talking about federal and provincial (Nursing, Teachers, Doctors, Accountants, etc)

And many don't.

The average private sector wage include people who work at McDonald's and Walmart. People who essentially threw their life away with bad decisions or inability.

So? The only difference between a postal worker and a wal mart employee is the postal worker had a buddy in the union. Edited June 1, 2011 by TimG

[Shwa]

Not too hard. Simply compare what people with a similar skill set would get in a private sector jobs. You will find that postal workers are grossly overpaid.

So, in other words, you can't come up with a "reasonable measure" is what you are saying.

Binding arbitration which usually gives them overly generous settlements.

Well if you can't come up with a reasonable measure to gauge "pure greed" then it is highly likely that you can show any binding arbitration settlements that were "overly generous." But I will wait for your data before I make my mind up.

So what? They have a monopoly. They can charge whatever they want to cover costs. End the monopoly.

Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982

VI. DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS

Powers of the Parliament

5.Postal Service.

Why on earth would the Canadian government give up something that generates revenue? Let me guess, we should privatize the government right Tim? Hand over the "monopoly" to regulating trade and commerce to the banks, find some contractor to take over the army; maybe the Franklin Mint could make our money instead of those grossly overpaid mint workers. I mean, they must have similar skill sets right?

[guyser]

The problem is that so many public positions require professional training, either college or university. Especially when talking about federal and provincial (Nursing, Teachers, Doctors, Accountants, etc)

Same job so same qualifications for the most part.

The average private sector wage includes teenagers working part-time for entertainment and education money.

You best provide a link for that assertion .

The average private sector wage include people who work at McDonald's and Walmart. People who essentially threw their life away with bad decisions or inability.

Dont be a dick. Thats mean spirited not to mentioon completely erroneous thing to say.

The average private sector wage does not factor in the huge, unreported under the table income earned in the private sector.

So in the public sector it does? (its a rhetorical Q )

I bet, that if you factor in the examples I list above the average wage of public sector and private sector would be pretty close.

Oh, I am pretty sure it doesnt. The gap is too large.

From this link.....

Detailed analysis of 2006 Census findings on full-time earnings by sector

and occupation show that government and public sector employees are paid

roughly 8 to 17 per cent more than similarly employed individuals in the

private sector. In addition, taking into account significantly higher paid

benefits and shorter workweeks, the public sector total compensation

advantage balloons past 30 per cent. Expressed in dollar terms, public sector

employers have a combined wage and benefits bill that is $19 billion higher

than if they had kept costs to private sector norms.

The federal government is the worst offender,

with a wage and salary premium of 17.3 per

cent (see Figure 1). Premiums paid by

municipal governments are almost as severe—

11.2 per cent. Provincial governments, as a

group, look comparatively good, but their

wage and salary premiums are still an

unacceptably high 7.9 per cent.

http://www.cfib.ca/research/reports/rr3077.pdf

Seems public sector is living large, all the while whining about it.

[bloodyminded]

Not too hard. Simply compare what people with a similar skill set would get in a private sector jobs. You will find that postal workers are grossly overpaid.

Yes, because the private system is objectively right, based on Natural Law?

Which begs the question: who is it that is breaking the "free market" and "objective" laws that determine true worth: WalMart, who pays slightly over minimum wage, or the (less profitable) CostCo, who tends to pay higher hourly wages?

They can't both be right, after all: either Walmart ois underpaying, or Costco is overpaying.

If you wish to base public wages on the (self-evidently Correct) measurements of pay in the private sector, you're going to have to make this difficult determination.

But if your answer is "they're both right, based on differing criteria and corporate policy," then of course there's no way to "compare" it with the public sector, based on skill set and remuneration.

Edited June 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[CPCFTW]

Middleclasscentrist and Scotty: "We're entitled to our entitlements!!!"

[CPCFTW]

I think a lot of the anti union people are simply jealous. They're working in areas which give few benefits and little vacation, and instead of resenting their employers they resent other workers who have what they don't have. But it isn't greedy to want to have vacations. Around the world, most countries mandate far more vacation than we get in Canada. In most of Europe, you're looking at a starting vacation, mandated by government, as of your first year of working, of four or five weeks. Generally, government workers in Canada start at 3 weeks, and jump to 4 weeks after about ten years. Five weeks doesn't come until, I think, the eighteenth year of service, and six weeks at close to thirty years. Places like Finland and Austria START at six weeks vacation!

Then there's the sick leave. Generally, in the government, you get about fourteen days or so a year. Smart people bank that vacation so that when they're older, if they have a bad illness, heart attack, stroke, cancer, whatever, they'll have it to fall back on. Even if not, well, as you get older, as you move into your fifties and sixties (not all government workers retire at 55) you get a lot more aches and pains. Nice to have sick leave to fall back on. Canada Post wants to cut sick leave down to 5 days a year, and have it non-bankable. Now you might think the workers have it cushy as it is, but why on earth would you think it reasonable for them to just shrug and say "Sure, go ahead. Cut our sick leave in half. You deserve more profits, after all."

And by the way, while unions are asking for 'outrageous' wage increases like 3%, executive pay went up another 13% last year. So all across the country companies and governments are trying to hold down worker pay increases, but the big shots are certainly not holding back their own pay increases. It's "Let the good times roll!" for them. You can be damned sure the CEO of Canada Post isn't worried about paying his bills.

Recession, what recession?

No one is jealous. They just don't want to pay for your lifelong workcation. Lol 14 sick days... give me a break. So every two years you can take a month and a half off for "migraines". What a joke.

Edited June 1, 2011 by CPCFTW

[TimG]

Yes, because the private system is objectively right, based on Natural Law?

It is based on supply and demand.

They can't both be right, after all: either Walmart ois underpaying, or Costco is overpaying.

Costco's business strategy is to pay more than any competitor so they can limit turnover. If Walmart raised it rates Costco would have to raise its. IOW - they are two ends of a single spectrum and not conflicting at all. The appropriate comparison for the equivalent government would be an industry average which includes both. Since wal mart level wages are more prevalent I would expect the average to be close to that.

[bloodyminded]

It is based on supply and demand.

Costco's business strategy is to pay more than any competitor so they can limit turnover. If Walmart raised it rates Costco would have to raise its. IOW - they are two ends of a single spectrum and not conflicting at all. The appropriate comparison for the equivalent government would be an industry average which includes both. Since wal mart level wages are more prevalent I would expect the average to be close to that.

But this isn't what you said, and I'm glad to see you've abandoned your intial stance.

20% wage differential is quite significant; not so much for the difference between $10 and $12 per hour, granted (CostCo employees...excuse me, associates...only being less underpayed than their WalMart counterparts), but once you get up into higher wages, it makes a serious difference.

Although it appears your new initiative is: "whichever is the lower wage. Yeah, go with that."

Edited June 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[CPCFTW]

But this isn't what you said, and I'm glad to see you've abandoned your intial stance.

20% wage differential is quite significant; not so much for the difference between $10 and $12 per hour, granted (CostCo employees...excuse me, associates...only being less underpayed than their WalMart counterparts), but once you get up into higher wages, it makes a serious difference.

Although it appears your new initiative is: "whichever is the lower wage. Yeah, go with that."

And then we have post office cashiers.... excuse me, clerks making $24/hr for doing the same type of work as the associates. I wonder why we'd think they're overpaid.

[fellowtraveller]

And then we have post office cashiers.... excuse me, clerks making $24/hr for doing the same type of work as the associates. I wonder why we'd think they're overpaid.

couple of major errors there. it is $24/hour plusa tremendous benefit package.

And I know people who have worked at Costco, you are expected and required to work hard, idleness is not tolerated. Unlike Canada Post.

Another significant difference is that Costco has fewer layers of management/supervision.

Alberta used to have a whole whack of provincial employees- liquor store cashiers and warehouse types- making that kind of money/benefits. All gone now, privatized,no harm done to society.

[TimG]

But this isn't what you said, and I'm glad to see you've abandoned your intial stance.

I haven't abandoned anything. My stance is industry should be the benchmark and if there are 100,000 Walmart employees and 10,000 Costco employees then the industry benchmark will be close to the Walmart wages. The fact that Costco is the exception in the retail industry does not change the average numbers. Edited June 1, 2011 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

I haven't abandoned anything. My stance is industry should be the benchmark and if there are 100,000 Walmart employees and 10,000 Costco employees then the industry benchmark will be close to the Walmart wages. The fact that Costco is the exception in the retail industry does not change the average numbers.

When a single company achieves such primacy, the very notion of "industry benchmark" becomes instantly skewed.

WalMart also leads the pack--by far--in employee lawsuits against the company, both individual and class-action. Well beyond the "per capita" levels.

They internally report higher-than-normal rates of employee dissatisfaction, based on company policy, rather than the corruption of it (ie the lawsuit material).

So perhaps you haven't chosen the wisest model.

It's all beside the point anyway: you think WalMart is somehow pushed into the wages it pays by "market forces"...as if human agency, choice, simply does not exist. That's nonsense.

We all have "personal responsibility"...except for the CEOs, CFOs, and major shareholders of WalMart? They, unlike the rest of us, are simply buffetted helplessly about by the wind generated from the flapping "invisible hand"?

Edited June 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[fellowtraveller]

It's all beside the point anyway: you think WalMart is somehow pushed into the wages it pays by "market forces"...

I know that Walmart had to pay well above minimum wage in Alberta through 2007-2007 because otherwise they'd have had to close the doors. A fair number of businesses did just that in Alberta in 2006/2007 because they just could not attract staff and could not pay 50% more than minimum, which was what it took. Walmart- like others- cut wages after the recession hit and they were able to find staff. No doubt they'll face the same situation again with the same wage increases soon as the labour supply once again starts to tighten later this year and next.

[TimG]

When a single company achieves such primacy, the very notion of "industry benchmark" becomes instantly skewed.

I am basing it on the number of employees - not the number of companies. If a single company employs the most people its rates will dominate the averages. There is no other fair way to do the calculation.

So perhaps you haven't chosen the wisest model.

As opposed to your model which is take the highest rate paid, triple it and claim it represents a fair wage?

It's all beside the point anyway: you think WalMart is somehow pushed into the wages it pays by "market forces"...as if human agency, choice, simply does not exist. That's nonsense.

You don't have a clue what the "market forces" are do you? "Market forces" are the exercise of human choice. Walmart does not need to pay more because it has no troubles finding workers that choose work for the rates it offers and it is willing to live with the consequences of a low paid workforce. Costco pays more because it does not want to deal with the employee turn over that comes with walmart wages. People who don't like WalMarts wages can choose to shop at Costco (mind you - their membership rules are designed to keep the riffraff out - not politically correct at all).

At the end of the day it is about choice. The trouble with government unions is they take that choice away from the people that pay their wages. In many cases we can't get rid of the monopoly so we need to legislate settlements if they can't be negotiated.

[bloodyminded]

I am basing it on the number of employees - not the number of companies. If a single company employs the most people its rates will dominate the averages. There is no other fair way to do the calculation.

You mean your arbitrary calculation that means nothing outside its own rarefied air...it now has its own codified spectrum of morality?

As opposed to your model which is take the highest rate paid, triple it and claim it represents a fair wage?

On the contrary, I've made no such claim anywhere. I see this as a difficult issue that demands intense debate and discussion.

You're the one who thinks it's a done deal...ironically, you base it on Randian notions of the economy....but then bring in matters of "fair" which should be utterly eschewed by your stance.

You don't have a clue what the "market forces" are do you? "Market forces" are the exercise of human choice.

If I "don't have a clue what the 'market forces' are," then how cone our assertions here are 100% identical?

Christ on a cracker, man.

The trouble with government unions is they take that choice away from the people that pay their wages. In many cases we can't get rid of the monopoly so we need to legislate settlements if they can't be negotiated.

You don't object to monopoly. Hell, it's your theory of how we we should measure people's wages!

Edited June 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

You mean your arbitrary calculation that means nothing outside its own rarefied air...it now has its own codified spectrum of morality?

I said the wages should be based on industry averages for workers with similar skill sets. What do you suggest as an alternative?

[Scotty]

The benefits they negotiated in the past are now outrageous by any reasonable measure. Refusing to change those benefits is pure greed

What's yer measure of reasonable? What the workers make in Botswana? Wages and benefits are comparable to other large organizations.

That is the point: in the private sector companies go under, people get fired and then rehired at a lower rate. The aggregate result is a decrease in private sector compensation. Public sector unions have no check on their demands because their employer cannot go bankrupt.

Yeah, but this is still BS. Canada Post, in fact, fired a whole pile of people over the last year when the economy was tanking. And to repeat, I know of no one who remained in his same job and was faced with his pay rate being dropped by his private sector employer. Not saying it might not have happened somewhere, but it certainly didn't in any large organizations I'm aware of.

[Scotty]

From this link.....

Detailed analysis of 2006 Census findings on full-time earnings by sector

and occupation show that government and public sector employees are paid

roughly 8 to 17 per cent more than similarly employed individuals in the

private sector.

You can't just take bald data like that on its face value. As the op you responded to pointed out, 'the private sector' includes a wide variety of job types. What's a clerk in the private sector vs a clerk in the public sector? Do they really do the same jobs? Large organizations tend to have a lot more complicated sets of requirements. Is the accountant who does people's taxes for a small firm in the private sector making the same as an accountant who does complicated books for a major corporation? No? Then why should he be the same as an accountant working for the federal government? The private sector guy working for a cleaning company might make minimum wages for mopping down the floor of supermarket, but the public sector guy is probably cleaning a hospital or lab or something like that with much more severe demands. Does a purchasing clerk working for a small company make the million dollar purchases the same guy in the public sector might? Is he using the same complicated software and responsible for abiding by the same levels of Treasury board and departmental policies and guidelines?

As the op pointed out, 'the private sector' will, in addition to comparable jobs in large multinationals, include an awful lot of low level jobs in very cheap organizations which don't require much and don't pay much. It's not fair to be comparing them to the federal government, which strives to make itself an employer of choice.

[Scotty]

It is based on supply and demand.

Costco's business strategy is to pay more than any competitor so they can limit turnover. If Walmart raised it rates Costco would have to raise its. IOW - they are two ends of a single spectrum and not conflicting at all. The appropriate comparison for the equivalent government would be an industry average which includes both. Since wal mart level wages are more prevalent I would expect the average to be close to that.

But an industry average would also include the Dollar Store, and all those little mom and pop retail outlets which pay minimum wage. And who says that a strategy to limit turnover isn't the right way for the government to go?

[Scotty]

I haven't abandoned anything. My stance is industry should be the benchmark and if there are 100,000 Walmart employees and 10,000 Costco employees then the industry benchmark will be close to the Walmart wages. The fact that Costco is the exception in the retail industry does not change the average numbers.

You know, in Europe, they seem to be able to have a decent society, with successful businesses while ensuring all employees get decent wages and benefits, lots of vacations along with plenty of sick leave. Why do you think that's not the way to go? You seem to be angling more for an American system, which basically says screw everyone but the rich, pay the minimum, give no benefits, and make the most profits. Personally, I think the German way is a much better society, and I don't see German companies crying out for bankruptcy or government bailouts the way American companies are.