Is Harper going after the unions?

CPCFTW · June 27, 2011

So then you agree that Bill C-6 should have never been passed because essentially the government legislated employees wages, not the market, and the arbitration was not fair because the government did not allow the arbitrator any decision making powers. Right?

Incorrect. I believe Bill C6 should have never been necessary. No public service unions = no bill.

June 27, 2011

Sure you can. Become a teacher, get a job in Ontario, ad BANG! you're in. Besides, you are completely ignoring private corporations, which makes your example even more useless.

In any case, my question was not addressed to you anyway.

:huh: I don't want to become a teacher, but as a taxpayer, I feel I should be allowed in on their contract negotiations sessions and be allowed a vote……..shareholders are attributed that same courtsey.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Derek L

Remiel · June 27, 2011

I don't want to become a teacher, but as a taxpayer, I feel I should be allowed in on their contract negotiations sessions and be allowed a vote……..shareholders are attributed that same courtsey.

Yes, and I feel like I should get to go to RIM shareholder meetings and vote without buying stock. What planet do you live on?

Shwa · June 27, 2011

Why was GM not allowed to simply fail? I sure as fuck don't get a bail out if I go bankrupt.

You are also not responsible for a million jobs. Once you are, I am betting you would get the kid glove treatment too.

Work harder GhostHacked!

mikedavid00 · June 27, 2011

Individual bargaining as well as collective bargaining are essential to the free-market system. No executive, or workers goes to a potential employer and lets them dictate the terms of their employment. Otherwise if employers called the shots it would be fascism.

LOL What fantasy world do you live in?

Of course employers dictate to us our work agreements. It's a JOB on their terms. lol.. unreal.

If we don't like thier terms, we are free to leave somewhere else. The communists and facists here on the far left are very confused when it comes to this topic. They just can't understand that determining wages should not be done by a group of intellectuals. It's really scary that Canadians have been bread to think like this. Wow.

mikedavid00 · June 27, 2011

"Corporations are responsible to their shareholders" is pretty much exactly the same thing as "unions are only responsible to their members".

Now what happens when Unions own 80% of the corporations through investment and pensions?

And the gov't knows this?

And the gov't now begins to protect these corporations to ensure their success in order to protect pensions of the unions (remember 3 of 4 unions are gov't unions with guaranteed backed pensions).

See a lot of you guys haven't researched where the money comes from and how it flows around in Canada. The media gives you basic spin and you just repeat their talking points. You think the Toronto Stock Exchange is filled with money from 'day traders' like what you see off TV? Lol.. the guys in suits trading stocks like winners. You've been watching too many movies. The market is filled with money from the PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS. THE PUBLIC SECTOR GET PAID THROUGH MONEY FROM THE LITTLE GUY IN CANADA GETTING HALF OF HIS MONEY TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM TO PAY FOR THESE PEOPLE. 1 IN 4 FULL TIME WORKERS WORK FOR THE GOV'T. 17% OF THE VOTING PUBLIC WORK FOR THE GOV'T. This country *IS* messed up and fascist.

June 27, 2011

Yes, and I feel like I should get to go to RIM shareholder meetings and vote without buying stock. What planet do you live on?

You can buy REM stock from the comfort of your home.....you don't have to move across country and change occupations

mikedavid00 · June 27, 2011

Why was GM not allowed to simply fail? I sure as fuck don't get a bail out if I go bankrupt.

If GM failed, what would have happened in REALITY is this:

-There would be empty warehouses with automotive making machinery.

-Private investors would buy all the used assets at great prices to be able to make cars.

-A new company would be in place.

-Jobs would be open for employment in the new facility.

-The slate would be wiped clean and there would be no way in hell that the new company would pay out the insane benefits, pensions, and salaries of these button pushers.

-Car prices would drop drastically.

-Consumers would pay less for cars.

-Consumers would have more money because their monthly car payments would be cut in half.

-Consumers would spend in the local economy.

-People could open small business and not go under.

-Employment would go up accross the board.

-New people employed means more spending in the economy.

-Now people are having trouble finding new employees at the old 'low wages'.

-Employers begin to raise wages and benefits.

-Now everyone is enjoying a better quality of life living in Canada.

All this from the big auto makers going under. Instead, we kept the gravy train flowing to button pushers demanding $75/h and have to pay inflated automobile costs to cover their lifestyle.

Remiel · June 27, 2011

You can buy REM stock from the comfort of your home.....you don't have to move across country and change occupations

Do you have a point? Am I supposed to bow in awe of your superior logic, despite the fact that moving across the country and changing occupations is merely the COST of belonging to the Ontario Teachers Union, just like cash is the COST of RIM stock? Do the words " private company " not mean anything to you?

Shwa · June 27, 2011

If GM failed, what would have happened in REALITY is this:

-There would be empty warehouses with automotive making machinery.

-Private investors would buy all the used assets at great prices to be able to make cars.

-A new company would be in place.

-Jobs would be open for employment in the new facility.

-The slate would be wiped clean and there would be no way in hell that the new company would pay out the insane benefits, pensions, and salaries of these button pushers.

-Car prices would drop drastically.

-Consumers would pay less for cars.

-Consumers would have more money because their monthly car payments would be cut in half.

-Consumers would spend in the local economy.

-People could open small business and not go under.

-Employment would go up accross the board.

-New people employed means more spending in the economy.

-Now people are having trouble finding new employees at the old 'low wages'.

-Employers begin to raise wages and benefits.

-Now everyone is enjoying a better quality of life living in Canada.

All this from the big auto makers going under. Instead, we kept the gravy train flowing to button pushers demanding $75/h and have to pay inflated automobile costs to cover their lifestyle.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

noahbody · June 27, 2011

DHL has no legal obligation towards the taxpayers now do they?

This is why I gave you the Petro Canada example, which you avoided. Should Petro Canada gas jockeys been highly paid because they were part of a crown corporation responsible to the taxpayer? Yes or no?

So... should workers at the Royal Canadian Mint putting out our coinage be paid the same as Franklin Mint employees putting out non-legal tender Elvis commemorative coins? Go ahead, make the comparison.

Maybe compare the compensation of RCM employees with that of their American counterpart. The American dollar is far more important to the world economy, so I guess they have greater responsibility and should be paid more (in your mind), right?

Because contracts are usually negotiated on an increase basis which, over time, has the cummulative affect of being more than the negotiated contracts of relative newcomers to any particular industry.

So you're saying government union members are entitled to their entitlements, just because.

Why should they? The only answer you have give is "because." As if "because" exists as a self-evident truth merely because you said so.

That would be a good reply to someone who just says "because." That's actually you though... "because they're a crown corporation," "because the union has been around a while." So what?

Edited June 27, 2011 by noahbody

bloodyminded · June 27, 2011

Wow.

Ok the Wal Mart wage might pay more in one area. Might pay less in another. It's SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

"Might," but doesn't. They pay slightly over minimum wage. They do this everywhere, without exception.

It is therefore company policy--which means, according to you, that they are openly flouting "supply and demand" and "free market" principles. Explicitly.

This must make you angry at them.

Intellectuals like yourself should never determine what a 'fair wage' is for certain work. That is basically communism.

Leaving aside the open question as to whether I qualify for that term: you are aware, are you not, that economic policy (including, most certainly, conservative economic policy) is devised by intellectuals?

This too must make you angry.

Edited June 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

June 27, 2011

Do you have a point? Am I supposed to bow in awe of your superior logic, despite the fact that moving across the country and changing occupations is merely the COST of belonging to the Ontario Teachers Union, just like cash is the COST of RIM stock? Do the words " private company " not mean anything to you?

I made my point at the beginning of our exchange……..Corporations are more representative to the general population than public sector unions………the average Canadian can choose to buy stock in said company from anywhere in Canada, but would have to change occupations and possibly move across country to effect change within a public sector union……they’re living off taxpayers dollars, where as I can choose to boycott the products of GM, Wal-Mart & Research in motion……..

cybercoma · June 27, 2011

Incorrect. I believe Bill C6 should have never been necessary. No public service unions = no bill.

Do you have any education whatsoever in the history of labour relations? You seem to be completely clueless as to the purpose of unions. Although they seem to be there just for the employees, they're not. Unions are there just as much for the corporations. Their purpose is economic stability. They are there to negotiate a fair contract from the employer on behalf of the employees, so you don't have people "going postal" on their employers. Funny that "going postal" phrase, eh?

fellowtraveller · June 27, 2011

Management bargains individually, even if there is a union. So that shoots your theory down altogether.
Collective bargaining is essential even for manages who basically set out their own wages....in many cases in proportion to the collective wages.

Not.

If I enter a unionized workplace I cannot broker my own deal, and I'm obliged to both accept what others have brokered and pay them for it. They do allow the farce of pretending I am not part of the union.

cybercoma · June 27, 2011

determining wages should not be done by a group of intellectuals

By fighting against unions and supporting the government's back-to-work legislation (C-6), this is exactly what you're promoting. That group of intellectuals determining wages for postal workers was the "Harper Government" (it says so on the letterhead now). If you truly believe in free contract negotiations, even if you don't agree with unions, you should be outraged at the government imposing a wage upon employees and disrupting their right to a free negotiation with their employer. Also, you seem to support the idea that it's ok for the companies to be that group of intellectuals, by unilaterally determining how much an employee should make. The only fair way to come to terms is through negotiations between both parties, employees and employers.

fellowtraveller · June 27, 2011

Might," but doesn't. They pay slightly over minimum wage. They do this everywhere, without exception.
It is therefore company policy--which means, according to you, that they are openly flouting "supply and demand" and "free market" principles. Explicitly.

This must make you angry at them.

Untrue.

In 2007-2007 in Alberta Walmart paid about 35-40% over minimum wage, because they had to. All employers did or close their doors. Walmart chose to stay open. Within a year or so wages there and elsewhere dropped back to minimum wage. Right now there are increasing signs that low budget employers like Walmart will have to again compete for labour, and again they will have to raise wages significantly.

They very most definitely do follow 'supply and demand', the options are limited to follow suit or lose all staff and close the doors. i can think of a few businesses that did the latter.

charter.rights · June 27, 2011

Not.

If I enter a unionized workplace I cannot broker my own deal, and I'm obliged to both accept what others have brokered and pay them for it. They do allow the farce of pretending I am not part of the union.

You can work under contract, not part of the union. The problem is of course that they are usually for fixed terms and you will be the first to go. That is the benefit of working without a union.However, I know a couple of corporations that have management contracts that are negotiated by collective bargaining. They aren't unions but management associations where one or two managers negotiate with the owners for improved salaries and benefits.

So yes you can broker a deal. You can be apply to be a manager, or a contract employee.

By the same token you cannot walk into a nuclear plant and enter restricted areas unless you have adequate training. There are lots of union, management and contract jobs you won't be qualified for. You can't walk into those places either and broker a deal. That is just the reality of a free market.

fellowtraveller · June 27, 2011

You can work under contract, not part of the union.

False.

If I work for the federal govt in a term or permanent job as a worker bee or manager I can negotiate nothing, though they will be different unions.

Same at GM, Syncrude, teachers, fireman, warehouse work, fireman,cop etc etc etc.

Unions have absolutely no interest whatsoever in having any wild cards working beside the brothers and sisters, none.

The company has no interest whatsoever in having any wild cards either, it rocks a boat they cannot have rocked.

Try again.

Shwa · June 27, 2011

This is why I gave you the Petro Canada example, which you avoided. Should Petro Canada gas jockeys been highly paid because they were part of a crown corporation responsible to the taxpayer? Yes or no?

Petro Canada gas jockeys were paid comensurate with their responsibilities. Now how about those Royal Canadian Mint employees...

Maybe compare the compensation of RCM employees with that of their American counterpart. The American dollar is far more important to the world economy, so I guess they have greater responsibility and should be paid more (in your mind), right?

Dodge.

So you're saying government union members are entitled to their entitlements, just because.

No I am saying that government union members are paid accordingly. The question on hand was why should the unions operating in private companies be used to determine fair wage for government unions? A question that you have completely avoided once we established that your original response was silly.

That would be a good reply to someone who just says "because." That's actually you though... "because they're a crown corporation," "because the union has been around a while." So what?

No, I am saying because they have legal responsibilities which is more responsibility than an employee at DHL or whatnot. Usually more responsibility means more remuneration.

But I have given you one reason why. You have given none, but the continual run-around, likely because you made a statement without any rational thought.

Because you pulled it out of your ass.

Now if you can give one good reason why a public sector union should have it's wages determined by those negotiated by a union in the private sector, without resorting to silliness, please do.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Shwa

GostHacked · June 27, 2011

You are also not responsible for a million jobs. Once you are, I am betting you would get the kid glove treatment too.

Work harder GhostHacked!

I've worked to get where I am today. I only have myself to blame if I fail. But, you got to wonder what put GM in that kind of position to require a bail out. Don't blame the unions.

bloodyminded · June 27, 2011

Untrue.

In 2007-2007 in Alberta Walmart paid about 35-40% over minimum wage, because they had to.

When we're talking such low wages, 35 -40% is only slightly over minimum wage. The percentage doesn't matter...the real dollars do.

At any rate, this is a wildly unusual example anyway.

WalMart policy is to pay slightly over minimum wage.

Do you suppose they would even deny this?

charter.rights · June 27, 2011

I've worked to get where I am today. I only have myself to blame if I fail. But, you got to wonder what put GM in that kind of position to require a bail out. Don't blame the unions.

During the time that GM was in trouble I remember reading an article in the G&M that said that the unions wages were only responsibile for something like 12% of GM's total liabilities. The biggest liability was GMAC which GM owned and which had invested in the Fanny May Freddie Mack housing scheme. When they lost GM was sent scrambling being on the hook for all of GMAC's losses.

noahbody · June 27, 2011

Petro Canada gas jockeys were paid comensurate with their responsibilities.

But if they belonged to an established union they should've, in time, make a lot more than other gas jockeys? That's the problem with that argument.

Now how about those Royal Canadian Mint employees...

I'd say a Marketing Director at the Franklin Mint should make more because s/he can significantly impact the bottom line of the company. Should someone on the assembly line make more at RCM than at Franklin mind? I'd say "no." The managers in charge of hiring should be well paid at both though as well as the head of security. Franklin Mint does sell $3500 coins.

No I am saying that government union members are paid accordingly. The question on hand was why should the unions operating in private companies be used to determine fair wage for government unions? A question that you have completely avoided once we established that your original response was silly.

Because the government needs to be responsible with taxpayer dollars for one. Secondly, private union wages for positions are generally higher than non-union wages, so paying significantly more than a private union has determined as "fair wage" for the job is stupid.

No, I am saying because they have legal responsibilities which is more responsibility than an employee at DHL or whatnot. Usually more responsibility means more remuneration.

Both have the responsibility to deliver. They don't have to make decisions that affect the bottom line. The problem is that the postal workers compensation is too far out of line. They start with 7 weeks of holidays. It's ridiculous.

But I have given you one reason why. You have given none, but the continual run-around, likely because you made a statement without any rational thought.

Your arguments are emotional... you're in love with unions and love is blind.

Now if you can give one good reason why a public sector union should have it's wages determined by those negotiated by a union in the private sector, without resorting to silliness, please do.

It's called managing hard-darned taxpayers wisely, with respect.

Wilber · June 27, 2011

It's interesting how Walmart keeps coming up. They maintain their price advantage because they are so huge they can grind their suppliers down to the last nickel but they will stop short of nothing to prevent their employees from having any kind of leverage that acting as a larger entity would do to help their interests.