Postal Strike Imminent

[CPCFTW]

Other than general ignorance, what gives you the idea people get promoted in the public service due to seniority?

Reality.

[bjre]

Most people have internet now. Mail becomes less important.

Postal service should lay off all current workers and let new immigrants who ask for 1/3 salary to deliver mails with their bicycles. That will significantly reduce the cost.

[CPCFTW]

Hahahahaha check out the terms of the current agreement:

They can retire after 30 years’ service, as early as age 55, and collect a full pension.

New employees receive wages of $24 an hour and seven weeks’ annual vacation.

Employees can bank sick days.

Naturally, Canada Post’s management is trying to find a way out of this squeeze. In its contract negotiations with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), it is proposing to create two tiers of employees, grandfathering current hires and offering new ones a cheaper (but still sweet) deal : wages of $17.50 an hour and six weeks’ vacation, and the possibility of retiring at 60 instead of 55. It is also offering all employees wage increases of 1.9% for the next three years, and 2% for the fourth year, while seeking to end the practice of banking sick days.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/31/tasha-kheiriddin-will-canadians-go-postal-over-a-cupw-strike/

How anyone can defend these greedy unions is beyond me. What a drain on our country.

Edited May 31, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Scotty]

Reality.

I don't think you're all that familiar with the term.

[Shwa]

How anyone can defend these greedy unions is beyond me. What a drain on our country.

Because they have a collective bargaining agreement. That is all the defence they need. As for their wages and perks, well, they have a collective bargaining agreement and negotiated those wages and perks in good faith with the employer. Now... if Canada Post is actually turning a profit - as things are - what sort of austerity measures are required and to fund what with their profits?

And IF Canada Post is making profits how is this a "drain on our country?"

[TimG]

if Canada Post is actually turning a profit - as things are - what sort of austerity measures are required and to fund what with their profits?

Canada Post has a legislated monopoly which means it can charge whatever it needs to charge to cover inflated union benefits. Eliminate the monopoly and you might have a case. As long as the monopoly exists Canada Post unions are a drain on Canadians.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Canada Post has a legislated monopoly which means it can charge whatever it needs to charge to cover inflated union benefits. Eliminate the monopoly and you might have a case. As long as the monopoly exists Canada Post unions are a drain on Canadians.

Prove that the private sector can do it for cheaper. I don't mean wage wise. I mean big picture. FedEx and UPS don't charge less than Can Post.

If you can prove that, you can prove that it is actually draining the tax payer's dollar.

Edited May 31, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[RNG]

Prove that the private sector can do it for cheaper. I don't mean wage wise. I mean big picture. FedEx and UPS don't charge less than Can Post.

If you can prove that, you can prove that it is actually draining the tax payer's dollar.

Several utilities in Calgary hired people to deliver monthly bills. This was before the internet became widespread. They were surprised to find out that there is a law in place that makes that illegal. It took business from Canada Post.

So back to the way more expensive stamp buying.

[CPCFTW]

Prove that the private sector can do it for cheaper. I don't mean wage wise. I mean big picture. FedEx and UPS can't charge less than Can Post.

If you can prove that, you can prove that it is actually draining the tax payer's dollar.

Fixed.

And here's some proof:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/CTVNewsAt11/20060414/whistleblower_mail_060427/

Edited May 31, 2011 by CPCFTW

[TimG]

Prove that the private sector can do it for cheaper. I don't mean wage wise. I mean big picture. FedEx and UPS don't charge less than Can Post.

Well if you are so certain CanadaPost is cost effective then you should not fear ending the monopoly.

[Shady]

Fixed.

BTW, here's some proof:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/CTVNewsAt11/20060414/whistleblower_mail_060427/

Great link! I can't believe these pieces of crap actually put people out of business usinge their own tax dollars against them. And they have the nerve to strike as well.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Well if you are so certain CanadaPost is cost effective then you should not fear ending the monopoly.

I'm not. Just suggesting that the numbers need to be fully shown.

Like in Toronto, where the Mayor, Rob Ford, voted to privatize garbage collection but, ironically voted against forcing the private companies to prove exactly how they would be more cost effective. Luckily, the councillors had enough sense to pass the requirement to actually show where the money would be saved by all bidders.

Privatizing services often costs more. Instead of providing a non-profit service, you need to add a minimal expectation of profit of around 7% (based on historical market trends). Every middle man needs to make that profit. If you have just 2 different stages, costs ballon by 14.5% just to provide the required profit to investors. It's not that much to ask the exact cost of privatizing.

Brampton, ON used PPP (Private-Public Partnership) to build a hospital. They ended up spending way more money for a smaller hospital. The government itself would have been more efficient.

[TimG]

I'm not. Just suggesting that the numbers need to be fully shown.

Why? End the monopoly and let the market sort it out.

We are not talking about privatization of services where I agree the existing union should be entitled to compete with private operators. In some cases the union will offer the better deal but you cannot assume that. The best way to sort these things out is an open bidding process - not with studies designed to protect the existing interests.

[CPCFTW]

I'm not. Just suggesting that the numbers need to be fully shown.

Like in Toronto, where the Mayor, Rob Ford, voted to privatize garbage collection but, ironically voted against forcing the private companies to prove exactly how they would be more cost effective. Luckily, the councillors had enough sense to pass the requirement to actually show where the money would be saved by all bidders.

Privatizing services often costs more. Instead of providing a non-profit service, you need to add a minimal expectation of profit of around 7% (based on historical market trends). Every middle man needs to make that profit. If you have just 2 different stages, costs ballon by 14.5% just to provide the required profit to investors. It's not that much to ask the exact cost of privatizing.

Actually basic economics says that perfect competition leads to 0 profits in the long run. You can extend that to meaning zero excess profits for investors (given the riskiness of the investment). That is, the investors will only receive a risk-adjusted return in line with market returns. Where are you getting your "historical market trends" of 7%? What makes you think the intermediaries in a supply chain don't also have inflated costs in a public system?

The point is that competition eventually forces companies to minimize costs such that their profits are the minimum possible profits that a company in that industry could generate to attract capital. There is no such minimizing force for a public sector company.

Edited May 31, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Battletoads]

Why? End the monopoly and let the market sort it out.

We are not talking about privatization of services where I agree the existing union should be entitled to compete with private operators. In some cases the union will offer the better deal but you cannot assume that. The best way to sort these things out is an open bidding process - not with studies designed to protect the existing interests.

An open market would have anyone in a rural community paying many times more for any postal service. Essentially what would happen is private enterprise would come in, take over the urban areas, and leave the rural areas to fend for themselves.

Now either you'd have to increase subsidies massively to Canada Post to maintain service, or you'd give a good old 'fuck you' and let rural areas do without any affordable postage/shipping. If you took the former option I doubt any money would be saved by 'opening the market'.

[Battletoads]

Actually basic economics says that perfect competition leads to 0 profits in the long run. You can extend that to meaning zero excess profits for investors (given the riskiness of the investment). That is, the investors will only receive a risk-adjusted return in line with market returns. Where are you getting your "historical market trends" of 7%? What makes you think the intermediaries in a supply chain don't also have inflated costs in a public system?

The point is that competition eventually forces companies to minimize costs such that their profits are the minimum possible profits that a company in that industry could generate to attract capital. There is no such minimizing force for a public sector company.

People actually believe this shit? Free market competition leads directly to monopolization and massive price hikes.

And seeing as the public sector live or die on the whims of those who are elected, i'd say there is indeed a minimizing force.

[CPCFTW]

People actually believe this shit? Free market competition leads directly to monopolization and massive price hikes.

And seeing as the public sector live or die on the whims of those who are elected, i'd say there is indeed a minimizing force.

Yes economists, statisticians, and financial professionals believe "this shit". Even when the market fails, monopolization cannot really exist when there is an anti-trust regulatory body in place. Equity returns on the S&P500 over the last 10 years have been around 0.6%/yr. Equity prices reflect the profitability and future growth prospects of companies.

And your proposed minimizing force is laughable. When has the public sector ever "died"?

Edited May 31, 2011 by CPCFTW

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Yes economists, statisticians, and financial professionals believe "this shit". Even when the market fails, monopolization cannot exist when there is an anti-trust regulatory body in place. Equity returns on the S&P500 over the last 10 years have been around 0.6%/yr. Equity prices reflect the profitability and future growth prospects of companies. And your definition of a minimizing force is laughable.

Don't pull the wool over your eyes. The anti-trust regulatory body just means oligopolies occur instead of monopolies. Two or three companies end up dominating and abusing their position in the market instead of one. They don't compete, because that would reduce profits.

[TimG]

An open market would have anyone in a rural community paying many times more for any postal service.

Just like the pay more for pretty much everything else except real estate. I don't have a huge issue with the canada post cross subsidies the trouble I have is with a union that thinks it is entitled to $24/hour starting wage with 7 weeks vacation for jobs that require no special skills. Come up with some other solution for the greedy SOBs in the union and maybe we can preserve the monopoly.

Personally, I think competition is the best way to deal with the union.

Now either you'd have to increase subsidies massively to Canada Post to maintain service

Or we subsidize telcom companies to ensure rural areas have access to high speed internet. That makes more sense to me. Edited May 31, 2011 by TimG

[CPCFTW]

Don't pull the wool over your eyes. The anti-trust regulatory body just means oligopolies occur instead of monopolies. Two or three companies end up dominating and abusing their position in the market instead of one. They don't compete, because that would reduce profits.

That is a more accurate assessment (for some industries) than Battletoads, but the focus of government should be on promoting enhanced competition in the free market to negate this effect, not to legislate the creation of monopolies that take the abnormal profits earned by investors/owners and hand them over (risk-free) to unions and unskilled labour.

Edited May 31, 2011 by CPCFTW

[fellowtraveller]

fellowtraveller, on 30 May 2011 - 08:28 PM, said:

"While they are at it, they should legislate an end to home delivery of mail for everybody, not just half the country.

It's waste of billions and demonstrably unnecessary."

.

"And profitable! Given what a crappy job most our cash strapped cities do of clearing snow off the sidewalks we'd have all kinds of old people keeling over dead every day. Just think of the savings! "

Ah, yes the emotional appeal! Think of the children!!! Add exclamation marks!!!!!!

Fact: no houses built in Canada since 1985 get household delivery, they all have community boxes conveniently located near your home. Nobody rural gets home delivery. Nobody in smaller communities gets home delivery. And nobody is dropping dead on our streets as a result. The reality is that continuation of home delivery is simply a sop, an expensive cookie for the postal unions. There is zero justification for it to continue. Time for it to end, now.

And profitable? Nice try. First class mail delivery is profitable for Canada Post, but only because they have a legislated monopoly on same. But that of course has nothing to do with how it is delivered, Canada Post would make a fortune off it going entirely to community mail boxes too- in fact they would make far more since expenses would drop dramatically.

Edited May 31, 2011 by fellowtraveller

[guyser]

Fact: Nobody rural gets home delivery. Nobody in smaller communities gets home delivery.

Best check your facts. I see rural and smaller communities getting mail delivered . In fact Monday morning on my return from the cottage I saw the postal car stop at each mail box.

[Scotty]

Great link! I can't believe these pieces of crap actually put people out of business usinge their own tax dollars against them. And they have the nerve to strike as well.

Are you under the strange illusion a bunch of clerks in a mail-room decided to use the legislation provided for by parliament to put a rival out of business? I mean, REALLY???!

It was a bunch of highly paid three piece suits sitting in a board room who made that decisions. And for this you call the striking workers "pieces of crap". Are you for real??

[Scotty]

Yes economists, statisticians, and financial professionals believe "this shit". Even when the market fails, monopolization cannot really exist when there is an anti-trust regulatory body in place.

Which is why gas prices rise and fall at all companies at the same time, right?

[AngusThermopyle]

Nobody rural gets home delivery. Nobody in smaller communities gets home delivery.

I didn't know that. So I wonder who the hell keeps putting our mail in our mailbox at the end of our driveway then? Dirty buggers! I'm going to have to look into that.