Postal Strike Imminent

[Bonam]

I was only stating a fact. Yes, I do think they'e underpaid; you disagree. But neither of us are dealing in some eternal and objective Truth about the Way Things must Be.

(Those capitalist enthusiasts who believe in the "Natural Law" of top-heavy free market economics have unwittingly raised profound philosophical spectres of which they're ill-prepared to tackle. But one can scarcely argue with religious fanatics, now, can one?)

Whether or not they are underpaid is a matter of opinion, yes. But opinion can and should be backed up by reasoning. If a cashier is worth minimum wage when he/she is hired, why is that cashier worth twice as much after they've been working the job for, say, 10 or 20 years? Do you really think that cashier is twice as efficient after 20 years? On the contrary, the few older people that I've seen working as cashiers who look like they've been doing that for a long time have been grumpy, unhelpful, and a bit slower if anything. Meanwhile the student cashiers are scanning and bagging things at a much faster pace. Anecdotal, of course, but anyway, raises should be based on performance if anything.

An engineer for a company becomes more valuable as they spend years working there, because they become deeply familiar with the products that company produces, with the way things are done there, with the unique contributions they have made to the projects, etc. They become the sole individuals possessing unique knowledge, and this greatly increases their value, warranting a company to try to keep them, since recruiting a replacement and having them become as useful could take years or decades. For an engineer, length of service and performance can be tied together very strongly. Same goes for many other professionals. But that is not the case with most minimum wage jobs. A cashier can be replaced with someone just as good within days.

So, again, why should they be receiving raises since there are so many other people out there, some unemployed, who would be willing and able to do that same job without the raise?

No, that's the Economics 101 theory about what such jobs are "for." There was no grand central planning here...which I'd think you would be happy about--so there are no "proper" roles for which jobs serve which perfectly delineated, historical-progressive idealist fanatasy of the capitalist machine that you appear to have worked out under the guidance of pure hypotheticals. Tons of independent adults make their living at such jobs. More than you think. (Your argument that they shouldn't is an entirely separate one.)

Obviously, I was not talking about any grand central planning. But it is the responsibility of each "independent adult" to try to make the best life for themselves that they can. It is my opinion that almost any independent adult that is not severely disabled in some way (and some of those who are, too) has the capability to do something that warrants more than a minimum wage job. If some choose not to, why should they be paid more than minimum wage, especially when there is so much competition for these jobs from people perfectly happy to work for just minimum wage?

Yes, and don't the problems with the world always seem to come down to the variation in human beings, the fact that they aren't exactly like those who manage to do relatively better financially? (Always partly through luck, mind, through elements out of their own control.) I don't take that argument too seriously, and frankly consider it self-indulgent and based on a class-warfare mentality.

Yes, playing a computer game for a living is so hard, I am sure it is only my unique genius and privileged upbringing ( ) that would allow me to do such a thing. Trust me, any dumbass can farm gold in WoW.

It's lack of compassionate imagination aside, it's an argument that elides the rather important fact that without the unsuccessful people, there are no successful people. Rather than deriding them you should be thanking them for their integral role in your own relative success. They are crucial to keeping the machine of commerce chugging along as well as it has. (They are also the only clear-cut class who have little to no fault in the economic collapses, incidentally.)

So if having an unsuccessful class is so important, why do you advocate for higher pay for them? Anyway, personally, I think raising up the bottom is both good and possible. (Almost) No one in the west lives in the kind of abject poverty that is common in Africa, for example, and yet there are still those who have great success in comparison to our relatively rich lower class. But raising up the bottom, in my opinion, is only possible if the economics of the situation make it possible, not by decree, not by whim, not because compassionate people think that minimum wage needs to be raised. A higher minimum wage just means that those who are making slightly above minimum wage have now been pushed closer to the bottom of the spectrum, and all goods and services rise in price.

Granted, I don't think you're 100% wrong. I too think that the 30 yr old cashier who has been there for eleven years, and trying to raise her child on $1300/month, should be actively pursuing other options.

Options like exercising better judgment in her next choice of boyfriend, someone who isn't gonna leave her to raise a child by herself, perhaps? I don't mean to belittle your example or anything, but I don't think most people who end up in such situations are blameless. I do not view it as society's responsibility to prop them up. As you say, they should be "actively pursuing other options". If they fail at doing so, why is a minimum wage job, which still lets them live in luxury and comfort compared to the majority of the world's population, and which many people in our society compete for, not good enough for them?

Edited June 4, 2011 by Bonam

[Scotty]

Members of the US Armed Services earn a total of 30 vacation days a year, not including national holidays.[/i][/indent]

30 days, eh? Why those lazy, greedy bastards! Shouldn't the Republicans be insisting on a claw-back of that to bring them in line with industry norms?

[bush_cheney2004]

30 days, eh? Why those lazy, greedy bastards! Shouldn't the Republicans be insisting on a claw-back of that to bring them in line with industry norms?

No...30 days is actually a smaller percentage than equivalent civilian occupations for active duty hours and deployments.

[Scotty]

No...30 days is actually a smaller percentage than equivalent civilian occupations for active duty hours and deployments.

While the ordinary plebes get zilch.

[bush_cheney2004]

While the ordinary plebes get zilch.

Ordinary plebes get vacation, holiday, sick time, and FMLA. If they don't like it, they can join the military. It's not a pressing social issue in the United States.

[Tilter]

OK, now remember this is coming from someone who is at present suffering mightily at the hands of those cruel posties---- it's bee more than 24 hours since someone put mail in my mailbox and I can't tell you how much suffering that is . all weekend long we have to do without postal service as the posties are on strike in Hamilton so I will be without my usual bunch of corespondence like them "we'll install windows for you" ads & the "Have a free weekend on us at beautiful Lake Crapalot condo complex. All you have to do is listen to a very high pressure country boy talk about the great advantage of owning a ---- TIMESHARE condo" damn I miss my letters. "But wait" as they say in the info-mertials, as the posties are only on strike here on the weekend I'll really be getting the same service as I would if they weren't on strike.

How they make us suffer!!

Edited June 5, 2011 by Tilter

[Scotty]

I have already demonstrated that 75% do get paid vacations.

Most of which is a bare 2 weeks.

Now why don't you tell us why the United States is too poor a country compared to, say, Brazil or Finland or Germany, to let it's people take a four or five weeks off to relax.

[Scotty]

Ordinary plebes get vacation, holiday, sick time, and FMLA. If they don't like it, they can join the military. It's not a pressing social issue in the United States.

Nor here. That's because people are largely ignorant about life elsewhere. Most people in Canada and the US don't realize that in most civilized countries the people simply assume that they will get at least a month off for vacation right from the start, unionized or non-unionized job. Do you think Americans and Canadians wouldn't WANT to have such benefits? I believe they simply don't realize how ordinary such benefits are elsewhere, and that yes, despite the howls from business, it really is quite possible to have a successful and stable country even by letting your workers have a five or six weeks off every year.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nor here. That's because people are largely ignorant about life elsewhere. Most people in Canada and the US don't realize that in most civilized countries the people simply assume that they will get at least a month off for vacation right from the start, unionized or non-unionized job. Do you think Americans and Canadians wouldn't WANT to have such benefits?

Some do...many don't. I don't have any vacation benefits yet I will have most of the summer off because I am an independent contractor and can afford to do so by choice. Unions have nothing to offer me or like minded professional labour.

I believe they simply don't realize how ordinary such benefits are elsewhere, and that yes, despite the howls from business, it really is quite possible to have a successful and stable country even by letting your workers have a five or six weeks off every year.

I think they do realize it but also realize the downside wrt their standard of living. So they make choices. America (and Canada) didn't get where they are by working less.

[bush_cheney2004]

Most of which is a bare 2 weeks.

Depends on the employer, length of service, and other factors.

Now why don't you tell us why the United States is too poor a country compared to, say, Brazil or Finland or Germany, to let it's people take a four or five weeks off to relax.

You don't understand America....relaxing is for losers!

[Guest American Woman]

Most of which is a bare 2 weeks.

Now why don't you tell us why the United States is too poor a country compared to, say, Brazil or Finland or Germany, to let it's people take a four or five weeks off to relax.

Who's paying their wages in those nations when they're on vacation time - the government or the employer? If it's the government, then it's being paid with the people's taxes, so their "paid vacation" is actually paid by themselves. In either case, whether or not the U.S. is "poor" is irrelevant if the people in those nations are paying higher taxes to enjoy the vacation benefits - or if their employer is paying their wages during their time off.

Do you think Americans and Canadians wouldn't WANT to have such benefits? I believe they simply don't realize how ordinary such benefits are elsewhere, and that yes, despite the howls from business, it really is quite possible to have a successful and stable country even by letting your workers have a five or six weeks off every year.

I'd like to know who's actually footing the bill in those nations - what their tax rate is. If it's simply that the difference in salary between management et al and the workers is not as great as it is in the U.S. and Canada and their employers are giving them that much paid vacation, then it seems as if the obvious answer would be yes. However, the "obvious" isn't always the best all around. Are small businesses priced out of the market because they can't afford to give as much vacation as the government mandates? I'd really have to know more about their nations other than the fact that they get that much paid vacation before I could give an answer.

[msj]

You don't understand America....relaxing is for losers!

Then you don't know the Japanese: A day in the life.

--------------------------------------------

Seems to me that the French don't work all that much less than Americans but I'm assuming that France has a higher unemployment rate than the US which would account for most of the 0.6 hours per day difference.

But who knows the extent of methodological differences in measuring unemployment between the two countries?

Edited June 5, 2011 by msj

[punked]

Then you don't know the Japanese: A day in the life.

--------------------------------------------

Seems to me that the French don't work all that much less than Americans but I'm assuming that France has a higher unemployment rate than the US which would account for most of the 0.6 hours per day difference.

But who knows the extent of methodological differences in measuring unemployment between the two countries?

The French have a 35 hour work week. I would assume that is where it came from.

[msj]

The French have a 35 hour work week. I would assume that is where it came from.

Sure, that's for employees. But what about people who work more than one job, contractors/self-employed people? Do they only work 35 hours/week?

Seems to me that the government can legislate all they want - people will find ways to work more if they want to or work less if they prefer to.

Edited June 5, 2011 by msj

[Guest American Woman]

Sure, that's for employees. But what about people who work more than one job, contractors/self-employed people? Do they only work 35 hours/week?

Seems to me that the government can legislate all they want - people will find ways to work more if they want to or work less if they prefer to.

With a 35 hour work week would come less pay. Obviously someone paid by the hour is going to earn less with a shorter work week. As to whether some would choose to work more hours - they may not have the choice, as their employer may not want to pay overtime wages.

[msj]

With a 35 hour work week would come less pay. Obviously someone paid by the hour is going to earn less with a shorter work week. As to whether some would choose to work more hours - they may not have the choice, as their employer may not want to pay overtime wages.

Of course.

But why does everyone assume that employees and employers alike follow the letter of the law?

Everyday employees and employers make decisions that circumvent rules and standards and these only become an issue when one makes a complaint.

I don't know how one is able to circumvent the rules in France but I know all kinds of ways employers/employees find to ensure that the work gets done in Canada.

[Sandy MacNab]

Nor here. That's because people are largely ignorant about life elsewhere. Most people in Canada and the US don't realize that in most civilized countries the people simply assume that they will get at least a month off for vacation right from the start, unionized or non-unionized job. Do you think Americans and Canadians wouldn't WANT to have such benefits? I believe they simply don't realize how ordinary such benefits are elsewhere, and that yes, despite the howls from business, it really is quite possible to have a successful and stable country even by letting your workers have a five or six weeks off every year.

Yeah, I want to have a Porsche too, but I expect to WORK for it. We can't have everything we want. It's about time you union fanatics realized that money doesn't grow on trees. Sure there are the filthy rich but if you pauper them by taxing the hell out of 'em you'll end up with 52 weeks vacation/year. Scotty, if you don't want to work quit and live off your kids like they did in the past. I've watched unionized workers for 60 years and have seen them get lazier and lazier; less and less productive.

[Machjo]

Canada Post workers have been bracing for a likely strike for some time now. Almost two years ago, Canada Post attacked one of their smaller unions, made up largely of young clerical staff, and after a month long strike managed to wrest away their sick leave package, replacing it with a private sector insurance scheme not nearly as generous and certain. Now they're demanding the same from Canada Posts' biggest union CUPW. And doing it with a certain heavy handed obviousness to things which indicate Canada Post doesn't really mind a strike. In addition to removing sick leave they want to drop wages for new hires by a 25%, expand temporary workers, increase worker contributions to benefits, and dramatically increase contributions for retired workers, and unilaterally change the safety regulations for letter carriers. All in the same contract.

So anyone who thinks this is going to be a short strike had best think again. Canada Post, which, incidentally, has been profitable for the last 16 years, is clearly setting out with a chip on its shoulder, and the only thing likely to end a strike is back to work laws passed by parliament. If that's done with arbitration Canada Post is most unlikely to get is way. If it's done without arbitration it will likely cause violence, but I'm not sure if the Conservatives necessarily mind that.

Oh my! I might feel the pinch a little if the strike lasts more than 3 months. What a minor discomfort that could be!

6 months? Irritating. 9 Months... the union will be broke.

[Guest American Woman]

Of course.

But why does everyone assume that employees and employers alike follow the letter of the law?

Ummmm. The law is what one goes by. If it's mandated by law to pay time and a half after 35 hours, then that's what an employer is obligated to pay. It's the law that we are discussing, not the few who break the law.

Everyday employees and employers make decisions that circumvent rules and standards and these only become an issue when one makes a complaint.

Again, why would we hold a discussion based on anything other than the law? That's what the issue is - what's mandated. By law. So some might break the law. What's your point??

I don't know how one is able to circumvent the rules in France but I know all kinds of ways employers/employees find to ensure that the work gets done in Canada.

Whoever said the work didn't get done? If more work needs to be done, another employee can be hired. At base pay. So the employer doesn't have to either break the law or pay overtime. Which was my point. In other words, unless an employer is willing to risk breaking the law or is willing to pay overtime, someone wanting to earn more by working more than 35 hours a week may not have that choice - unless they work two jobs.

But again. We are talking about what different countries mandate. That's the issue.

Edited June 5, 2011 by American Woman

[msj]

Ummmm. The law is what one goes by. If it's mandated by law to pay time and a half after 35 hours, then that's what an employer is obligated to pay. It's the law that we are discussing, not the few who break the law.

Again, why would we hold a discussion based on anything other than the law? That's what the issue is - what's mandated. By law. So some might break the law. What's your point??

Whoever said the work didn't get done? If more work needs to be done, another employee can be hired. At base pay. So the employer doesn't have to either break the law or pay overtime. Which was my point. In other words, unless an employer is willing to risk breaking the law or is willing to pay overtime, someone wanting to earn more by working more than 35 hours a week may not have that choice - unless they work two jobs.

But again. We are talking about what different countries mandate. That's the issue.

Fair enough.

I just think laws get circumvented much more often than people think because I see it on a regular basis.

That's the funny thing about laws that are to "protect" people - when people don't want the protection they willingly circumvent the rules to get what they want.

And this happens far more often than a "few" times.

As for the point?

I think it's clear from the link I have provided above: I don't think Americans (and, by extension, Canadians) work all that much more, on average, than French.

Yes, 4.8 hours is 14% more time per day for paid work.

But this is an average and one needs to consider factors such as higher unemployment in France compared to the US/Canada which would naturally reduce their amount of paid work down towards 4.2 hours.

[Shwa]

Yeah, I want to have a Porsche too, but I expect to WORK for it. We can't have everything we want. It's about time you union fanatics realized that money doesn't grow on trees. Sure there are the filthy rich but if you pauper them by taxing the hell out of 'em you'll end up with 52 weeks vacation/year. Scotty, if you don't want to work quit and live off your kids like they did in the past. I've watched unionized workers for 60 years and have seen them get lazier and lazier; less and less productive.

Really? I've seen local auto workers get busier and busier, more and MORE productive. Alas, that is anecdotal isn't it? Here, let me give you a couple of citations to back it up:

Doomed GM plant is most productive - from CNN

GM Oshawa plants top productivity study

So the workers were more productive, the operations were streamlined, everything was going along tickety-boo and well, damn, those workers got 52 weeks of vacation. But the filthy rich at GM still got their filthy riches.

Here is another citation, more or less along the lines of the thread:

Canada Post recorded its 15th consecutive year of profitability

[Shwa]

Now you are reduced to special pleading by saying government workers should be entitled to above market benefits to "ameliorate" the perceived harms of the capitalist economy. However, such arguments ignore the harms to the real wealth producing activities which is ultimately my point. Why should government workers be singled out for special treatment?

Really? You have to ask this again Tim? You want to compare 'market benefits' against a legislated and legal responsibility?

Well son, mercenaries likely get paid more than your average grunt wouldn't you say? Why should mercenaries get "special treatment" especially when so many of them got their training on our dime?

Or perhaps you would like our police officers paid at the same rate as Brinks security guards. None of this welfare-state army or police for you right Tim?

Next time your house is burning down, perhaps you would like to have that conversation with the group of fire-fighters who show up to put out the fire. Ask them about why they should be compensated so well by our precious tax dollars.

I bet they will still put out the fire. Lucky for you eh Tim?

Edited June 6, 2011 by Shwa

[TimG]

Really? You have to ask this again Tim? You want to compare 'market benefits' against a legislated and legal responsibility?

First, this thread is about postal workers - not police or firemen. Trying to conflate emergency workers with postal workers is pure dishonesty on your part.

Second, the government needs to offer competitive wages that will convince people to take the job. There would still be a lot of people willing to take postal jobs at much lower wages than they get now. This means the wages are above market.

For other fields, i.e. nursing, governments may not pay enough because they are having difficulties recruiting.

[Shwa]

First, this thread is about postal workers - not police or firemen. Trying to conflate emergency workers with postal workers is pure dishonesty on your part.

I was responding to your comment, which now appears to be nothing more than you waffling to try and get out of a corner. If anyone is displaying "pure" dishonesty, it is you Tim for your waffling and then trying to dodge it. Here it is again, as a reminder. I have bolded out some of the informative bits:

TimG, on 03 June 2011 - 04:30 PM, said:

Now you are reduced to special pleading by saying government workers should be entitled to above market benefits to "ameliorate" the perceived harms of the capitalist economy. However, such arguments ignore the harms to the real wealth producing activities which is ultimately my point. Why should government workers be singled out for special treatment?

Doesn't say anything about "postal workers" and besides, if that is what you meant, then perhaps you should have been more clear.

Second, the government needs to offer competitive wages that will convince people to take the job. There would still be a lot of people willing to take postal jobs at much lower wages than they get now. This means the wages are above market.

And plenty of other private sector wages are "above market" but that is neither here nor there, because I have already told you - on several occasions, including specifics - that "government workers" - and by that I mean postal workers, file clerks, army grunts, etc. have a different set of Constitutionally driven responsibilities to go along with their "skill set." You seem to ignore this and I get you know why.

First, this thread is about postal workers - not police or firemen. Trying to conflate emergency workers with postal workers is pure dishonesty on your part.

Because you cherry pick. More "pure" dishonesty. Well Tim, do I need to cite the part in the Consitution of Canada that gives government responsibility over the mails? Just like it does for defence. Why not give up the "monopoly" on both Tim? Why not private defence contractors to run our military so much more cheaply than those overpaid generals?

For other fields, i.e. nursing, governments may not pay enough because they are having difficulties recruiting.

Right. So there are exceptions to your rules. Well, the government isn't having any problems recruiting postal workers, nor profiting from their hires. So I guess all is fair in your world isn't it?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

This is really an argument between unionized and non-unionized environments.

Unionized workers make more with better benefits. This is well documented. Most(all?) of the public sector is unionized.

Canada Post does not run on Tax Payer money. It runs on customer money. If Canada Post can pay those wages without dipping into Tax Payer money, I really don't care. It is giving people a good living and anyone can apply for the job.

So if they are really overpaid, why isn't everyone applying for a job to work with them? Maybe because the job isn't as good as people make it out to be. Rain, snow or shine, they have to do their work.

Why not just be a professional roofer and make more?