Is Harper going after the unions?

[CPCFTW]

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?

I know the history of unions. They did a good job of ensuring that workers are not exploited. I don't really mind if the private sector unions want to ship all their jobs overseas, but public sector unions are taking taxpayer money to demand arbitrarily "fair" wages that are way out of line with the compensation in the private sector. We don't live in the same times as when public sector unions were necessary. Now it is the non-unionized private sector employees being oppressed by these unions.

The irony is that it is the private sector that pays for the public sector's existence, but if that wasn't enough, now the private sector must also subsidize the public sector buying them up in their pension plans. The private sector pays (through taxation) the public sector to be bought/taken over (through pension plans). Public sector pension benefits are invested into private sector company bonds and equities which must generate an acceptable return to attract investors. Private companies generate the acceptable return by cutting labour costs and compensation to the private sector employees since this is the easiest (or even the only) input to cut back on in a service economy.

The private sector essentially winds up paying taxes to fund the public sector's operations and salaries, and then paying their profits to the public sector's pensions. Once again, companies generate these acceptable returns by cutting private sector labour costs. The private sector is being bought up by the public sector AND paying taxes to fund the operations of the private sector. It is becoming a two tier society where the private sector is oppressed by the public sector. It is completely oppressive on the private sector. If you can't recognize this then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Look at what the private sector has been reduced to to satisfy the return expectations of the public sector pension funds:

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110625/unpaid-internship-exploit-workers-110625/20110625/?hub=EdmontonHome

Entry level graduates in the private sector are being forced to accept slave labour while the public sector whines that their newly hired high school drop outs will have to accept around $20/hr and a mere defined contribution pension plan rather than defined benefit pension plan. This is beyond communism/socialism or any of those pretty ideals. This is oppression, plain and simple, and it has to stop.

The employees that are being oppressed are the ones who get no ownership stake in these private companies... the employees of the private companies themselves. Instead of giving an ownership stake in the form of stock options or pensions to its own employees, the private companies must cut back on these costs to fund the public sector buying up all the ownership interest.

It's a difficult concept to grasp, but the reality is that the public sector workers are the "elites" of this society. They are oppressing the private sector employees.

Edited June 27, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Battletoads]

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil105a-eng.htm

Go to bed child.

Median income of a person vs average salary of a job...

show me some evidence that a 50k a year salary for a 40h/week job is out of line.

[pegasus]

Median income of a person vs average salary of a job...

show me some evidence that a 50k a year salary for a 40h/week job is out of line.

Here http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/labr80-eng.htm

Average hourly rate in Canada is $20.95, but one must also take into consideration that 9 provinces are below the national average, while only Alberta and the territories are above. So in fact, the majority of the population earn less than the national average.

But even with that, only in the Yukon and Northwest Territories would the average hourly pay, working a 40 hour work week would yield a person over $50,000 a year.

The average is 20.95 x 40 x 52 = $43576.00

But this data is skewed, because it includes overtime. I couldn't find any list that does not include overtime. If overtime was not included, this 20.95 average would be less.

Edited June 28, 2011 by pegasus

[mikedavid00]

"Might," but doesn't. They pay slightly over minimum wage.

And who sets the minimum wage again?

So in actuality, the gov't is setting the Wal Mart wages..

See, there's a 'lower' pay range and a 'higher' pay range. The majority of workers in Canada are not part of the civil service or dying industrial unions and are paid 'lower' pay range - especially in the United states. When the gov't raises MINIMUM wage a couple of dollars, all the wages on the 'lower end' of the scale go up. So a forklift operator making $12 and hour gets bumped up to $14. This is the damage McGuinte caused in Ontario when prices went through the roof when he raised minimum wage an insane amount. Now a hamburger at a restaurant here is pushing $12.

Overall I like the minimum wage.. but it should be MINIMUM. Not a BASELINE SOCIALIST LIVING PAY if that makes sense to you. So there are small towns now in Ontario, where a minimum wage job is paying as almost high as skilled labor. That is communism - not free market. The minimum wage should be a MINIMUM. Let the companies compete for the 'low end' of the market place workers. Surprise, you'll see hourly pay go UP!

Stop acting elite and trying to intellectualize pay structures and salaries. Go to Russia if you want to do that.

The key is to stop the 'people flooding' of Canada through our needless, useless immigration policies and let the employers start to fight over us employees. I remember the days of telephone interviews. You get interviewed over the phone, they then PAY for your move out to another city. Who remembers those days?

[mikedavid00]

Average hourly rate in Canada is $20.95

That number INCLUDES public service and other unions (auto workers etc).

Get back to reality and talk about the median pay of 75% of working Canadians. You will find about $10-$15/h range. That's the truth and the truth hurts a lot of people. American's alrgest employer pays an everage of $10 an hour. Actually, Americans are living off about $12 and hour. I wish I could find the site where they broke it down. It actually made headlines a few years ago.

My first job was a postal worker.. err.. paper boy getting below minimum wage. Then I made minimum wage throughout my teens. I got $4.15/h at my first 'real' job at McDonalds. Then after school I made $12.50/h in a call center. Most people stayed in that salary range. Worked retial. etc. I decided to move, pursue a career then it went up and up and I eventually did well for myself, but I had to move to this sh*t hole of a city or it wouldn't have happened for me. The demand for my skills was here. So I had to move. It's not credentialism.. just supply and demand.

If I was back in Ottawa i'd still be making the same low pay. Possibly working retail.. something like that. Ottawa was tough.. getting 'sent home' from work after 3 hours was normal. Never getting a full 37.5 hours a week. Silly small pay checks.

Only 25% of Canadians make money. Those people are called 'civil servants and union workers'. The high pay, private sector in Canada is very, very small. Microscopic and usually reserved for people over 50 years of age.

The people who really get the salaries are the energy workers, gov't licensed engineers, professors, doctors, etc. etc. All gov't, unionized communist jobs. We get our money stolen from us to pay for this paychecks. That's the simplest way to put it.

And yes, they own the stock market. Not the lowly Canadian.

[mikedavid00]

It is becoming a two tier society where the private sector is oppressed by the public sector. It is completely oppressive on the private sector.

EXACTLY!

This person understands what Canada is really about.

You know the question 'what's the meaning of life?'. I asked the question 'What is the meaning of living in Canada... what is our purpose here'?..

My brother answered" "what it means to be a Canadian is to support the big pyramid system. You are at the bottom layer of the pyramid, and the upper layers of the pyramid (civil servants, non profits, politicians, gov't elites) exist soley to suck money away from you to funnel up to the top of the pyramid".

View the society of Canada as a big pyramid. You are at the top, or bottom. Most of us are at the bottom, SUPPORTING the people at the top. The top of the pyramid is now so big, that the only way they can have people supporting them is to let in immigrants. They come with a life savings, take out home loans, and have a short term benefit to the govt's coffers. When that doesn't work, they just print more money.

When the gov't announces spending, what they are REALLY doing is saying "we're going to hire more civil servants". When the gov't spends (healthcare, police, you name it), they are actually spending on SALARIES OF PEOPLE. Each civil servant (who usually works 3-4 days a week and does 6 hour days and surfs the web and does personal calls.. i should know.. i worked for the gov't) will cost us between 3 to 11 million dollars during their lifetime - EACH SINGLE CIVIL SERVANT.

Many Canadians and working families are spending up to 12 hours a day with travel to work, 5 days a week, and sometimes weekends WITHOUT PAY, working and getting paid peanuts to pay for these idiots in the civil service. They are half brain dead, but consider themselves extremely self important and elite. You know the types.

Actually I was at the bank last year and we started talking about teachers. The lady said point blank that teachers 'aren't smart'. She said she couldn't believe how dim they were. She said that the teachers got special interest rates on their mortgages and guaranteed loans for this and that. She works at a bank. She's low paid, has to share an office, has to do a REAL days work.. you know the drill.

My friend got a job at BMO in Markham as a financial advisor when he graduated from Carleton U with his masters in business. His pay was $15.50 an hour. Another friend of mine was a teller in Ottawa.. Hunt Club area near the buffet. She got $10.50 an hour as a teller.

Benefits? Lol.. you have to PAY for them. Are you kidding? The company actually MAKES MONEY off any benefits you buy from ManuLife etc. They sell their own staff benefits. A MINORITY of private companies give you FREE benefits (dental, eye, drug). Although it does exist. It's not the majority.

These are the hardships that 75% of full time, HARD WORKING Canadians who pay taxes have to go through each day. They aren't under paid, they just get TOO MUCH TAKEN FROM THEM TO GIVE TO THE PYRAMID!!

[Battletoads]

Here http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/labr80-eng.htm

Average hourly rate in Canada is $20.95, but one must also take into consideration that 9 provinces are below the national average, while only Alberta and the territories are above. So in fact, the majority of the population earn less than the national average.

But even with that, only in the Yukon and Northwest Territories would the average hourly pay, working a 40 hour work week would yield a person over $50,000 a year.

The average is 20.95 x 40 x 52 = $43576.00

But this data is skewed, because it includes overtime. I couldn't find any list that does not include overtime. If overtime was not included, this 20.95 average would be less.

Must have missed the 'full time' part, otherwise the results would be skewed by some teenager making minimum wage working a couple hours a week.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Battletoads

[mikedavid00]

Otherwise the results would be skewed by some teenager making minimum wage working a couple hours a week.

And vice versa.

I noticed your sig and it's very fitting.

2015 Predictions:

Certain:

The national debt will be larger

Crime will be up

Two tier healthcare will be on its way in

No it won't.

And do you know why? Who here can guess why we don't already have two tier healthcare?

Thought not. The real reason why we don't get private healthcare, is because all of our civil service will want healthcare plans! These cost in the ballpark of $1k MINIMUM in Canada. Knowing our gov't, the costs will be huge because our gov't will practice it's destructive interventionism and mess it all up. None the less, it would still be available. Finally new hospitals being build across Canada.

The top of the pyramid KNOWS that the unions will demand these healthcare plans at the cost of at least $1k per MONTH per civil servant. This is a 12k increase per year on every civil servants salary high or low.

Also, when the civil servant retires, he or she will STILL get the health plan paid for them. So it's a lifetime of quality, private healthcare.

DO YOU THINK THAT THE MAJORITY OF LOWLY, STRUGGLING, LOW PAID CANADIANS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PYRAMID WILL GET TO EXPERIENCE PRIVATE HEALTHCARE??? LOL ARE YOU KIDDING? NOOO.. WE'RE TOO BUSY ENSURING THAT THOSE IDIOTS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE WHO DO NOTHING ALL DAY GET A PENSION, HUGE SALARY, AND BENEFITS WHICH NOW INCLUDE PRIVATE HEALTHCARE!

And THAT is your role as a Canadian. Just sit down, don't complain, and get to work to support the rich and elite lifestyles of the upper tiers of the pyramid. A second class of people.

(I take this issue with passion and serious because it's the number 1, most essential and important thing you need to know as a Canadian. It expalins why Canada is Canada. Why we take in so many immigrants compared to everyone else, why we have public healthcare, why we are the highest taxed nation in the G8. CPCFTW is someone who is armed with the proper knowledge of how Canada 'works'. You have to understand the markets, who makes the money, where it gets funneled to, and who controls your destiny in Canada. You'll never look at the country the same again. You realize that you don't have freedom at all in Canada. The gov't takes it all from you and leaves you with the illusion of freedom). Freedom isn't about speech, it's really economic freedom that matters most.

Edited June 28, 2011 by mikedavid00

[Battletoads]

And vice versa.

I noticed your sig and it's very fitting.

No it won't.

And do you know why? Who here can guess why we don't already have two tier healthcare?

Thought not. The real reason why we don't get private healthcare, is because all of our civil service will want healthcare plans! These cost in the ballpark of $1k MINIMUM in Canada. Knowing our gov't, the costs will be huge because our gov't will practice it's destructive interventionism and mess it all up. None the less, it would still be available. Finally new hospitals being build across Canada.

The top of the pyramid KNOWS that the unions will demand these healthcare plans at the cost of at least $1k per MONTH per civil servant. This is a 12k increase per year on every civil servants salary high or low.

Also, when the civil servant retires, he or she will STILL get the health plan paid for them. So it's a lifetime of quality, private healthcare.

DO YOU THINK THAT THE MAJORITY OF LOWLY, STRUGGLING, LOW PAID CANADIANS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PYRAMID WILL GET TO EXPERIENCE PRIVATE HEALTHCARE??? LOL ARE YOU KIDDING? NOOO.. WE'RE TOO BUSY ENSURING THAT THOSE IDIOTS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE WHO DO NOTHING ALL DAY GET A PENSION, HUGE SALARY, AND BENEFITS WHICH NOW INCLUDE PRIVATE HEALTHCARE!

And THAT is your role as a Canadian. Just sit down, don't complain, and get to work to support the rich and elite lifestyles of the upper tiers of the pyramid. A second class of people.

(I take this issue with passion and serious because it's the number 1, most essential and important thing you need to know as a Canadian. It expalins why Canada is Canada. Why we take in so many immigrants compared to everyone else, why we have public healthcare, why we are the highest taxed nation in the G8. CPCFTW is someone who is armed with the proper knowledge of how Canada 'works'. You have to understand the markets, who makes the money, where it gets funneled to, and who controls your destiny in Canada. You'll never look at the country the same again. You realize that you don't have freedom at all in Canada. The gov't takes it all from you and leaves you with the illusion of freedom). Freedom isn't about speech, it's really economic freedom that matters most.

Do you honestly expect me to believe that civil servants bringing in less than 50k a year is some sort of elite separate class of a Canadian?

Ahahahahaha

Wait, you're serious? Allow me to laugh even harder.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Battletoads

[Shwa]

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.

If you entered into a unionized workplace, then you have made the choice to do so. If there is a unionized workplace then it was allowed by the employer as their choice.

And, quite frankly, it is likely easier - and much more cost effective - for the employer to negotiate wages and benefits for a whole group than it is individually.

Even if you went into a workplace without a union, there is no guarantee that you would be able to negotiate your own wages and benefits as an individual - and it is highly unlikely you would be able to if the worker population was large enough. Like a factory for example where wages and benefits were arbitrarily given and taken away at the whim of the employer prior to worker unions.

Why do you think we have unions in the first place?

[Shwa]

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.

And the problem with your argument is that you are using a fantasy argument. Seriously, noahbody, stick to reality will you please?

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.

Good. So our police officers should be paid the same as security guards. That's what I thought. Well, I mean, the managers in the police services should be paid more, but that is about it right? I mean, security guards police museum exhibitions, some of them with priceless artefacts.

No. The RCM workers deserve to be paid higher because they have more responsibility than the Franklin Mint worker. More responsibility means higher wages and benefits.

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.

More responsibility = more wages and benefits. That is "free market" thinking, especially when you observe the usual compensation of management in a given organization as you clearly point out above. It only stands to reason then, that this responsibility "with taxpayer dollars" should count in the overall increased compensation package. Unless, of course, you want cops paid the same rate as security guards at, say, Walmart.

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 only one of them has a Constitutional responsibility to deliver mails and only one of them has this responsibility in a legal context. So they are legally responsible to deliver the mail. More responsibility = higher wages and benefits.

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

Riiiiight.

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

Hence the increased responsiblity towards taxpayers and legal obligations.

Now minimize all that for me please. Reduce the responsibility towards taxpayers and legal obligations to nothing so you can equalize with the private sector workers with similar skills. That is a silly argument and completely out to lunch since you have pointed out that some workers - managers - should be paid more since they have more responsibility.

But when more responsibility is applied to public sector workers, this added responsibility somehow doesn't count as meaningful.

So you contradict yourself.

[bloodyminded]

And who sets the minimum wage again?

So in actuality, the gov't is setting the Wal Mart wages..

No, the governemnt is setting the lowest allowbale bar, lower than which the company cannot go.

If there were no minimum wage, WalMart would pay less than it does. Why wouldn't it?

Overall I like the minimum wage.. but it should be MINIMUM.

Like what, then? What should it be?

Let the companies compete for the 'low end' of the market place workers. Surprise, you'll see hourly pay go UP!

Yeah, ok. That's an interesting utopia you're imagining.

Stop acting elite and trying to intellectualize pay structures and salaries. Go to Russia if you want to do that.

Elite? You're the one who defends the minority power position against the majority weaker position. You're the elitist, by definition.

Edited June 28, 2011 by bloodyminded

[cybercoma]

People that want to abolish minimum wage and social assistance are nuts. Most people will take whatever job they can get, even if they can't live off the money, just to have a job. Many people today out of principle do the same, instead of collecting assistance. The vast majority of people I know on "welfare" didn't want to go on it, but had no other choice. The reason we have these laws and programs is to create stability for business. If you don't address poverty, it causes disruptions to the economy through increased crime and decreased health and education. Moreover, it instigates a class war between those who are living in luxury, while the vast majority of people suffer. It's only a matter of time before people rise up and fight back. Social assistance and minimum wage, aside from being humanitarian, is designed precisely to ensure economic stability. It's in the favour of the companies, just as much as those it helps. These programs will never be abolished because they are a huge part of the success of the capitalist system.

Edited June 28, 2011 by cybercoma

[mikedavid00]

More responsibility = more wages and benefits. That is "free market" thinking

Yes that is true most of the time, the reason why is because of 'supply and demand'.

When a job requires MORE responsibility, it is harder to find people that can handle the responsibility. So to entice these people, the salary needs to go up.

For instance, if I'm hiring a CMA to handle a new division of my enterprise, it's his responsibility to ensure that everything is feasible and we're making money. If he fails, the whole company goes under so he has a LOT of responsibility. This person is a very rare find so needs to get paid a lot more.

But what happens when the media and big brother FOOL YOU into thinking every civil service job is SO IMPORTANT!!

That bring me to police.

How much responsibility do you really need to make a damn arrest after a crime has been committed. Well we have security guards now with guns and able to make arrests. They don't get paid NEARLY as high.

Detectives are another story though. That requires more responsibility. But the officers? Who cares about them. They are security guards in my eyes. $100,000 security guards these days.

I personally feel that paramedics have WAY more responsibility than police, yet they get paid so much less. The reason why they were privatized is because the response times were poor when most of them were civil servants (there's a surprise).

Actually paramedics don't get paid that bad.. they also get to work 12 hour days and get paid a full weeks pay. They work 3 days a week. Just like nurses. 3 day work weeks. Actually a LOT of civil servants get to work 3 day weeks.

Back during the tech boom, lots of companies allowed 3 day work weeks. It was awesome. It felt like I was working part time. The 12 hour shifts didn't feel any longer... I got Sat, Sun, Mon, Then Wed and Thu off. Most of the week off with full time pay.

This is back before MASS IMMIGRATION came sweeping through to take all our jobs and saturate our job market. Man companies in the private sector really enticed employees with all the perks.

Now, I'm competing with 80 people for a single job. Just cutting immigration would make this country a great place to work and enhance the quality of everyone's lives.

[fellowtraveller]

If you entered into a unionized workplace, then you have made the choice to do so. If there is a unionized workplace then it was allowed by the employer as their choice.

And, quite frankly, it is likely easier - and much more cost effective - for the employer to negotiate wages and benefits for a whole group than it is individually.

Even if you went into a workplace without a union, there is no guarantee that you would be able to negotiate your own wages and benefits as an individual - and it is highly unlikely you would be able to if the worker population was large enough. Like a factory for example where wages and benefits were arbitrarily given and taken away at the whim of the employer prior to worker unions.

Why do you think we have unions in the first place?

Yes, and the first couple paras of your answer support my contention that it is fiction that wages and terms are negotaible ina unionized environemnt.

You're utterly wrong about conditions in the private sector. I once employed about 40 people in a branch operation of a medium size corp and every one of them negotiated their pay, vacation time and sometimes other perks. The result was that nearly everybody had different salaries, depending on experience, skillset and ability to negotiate. In fact, hiring of subordinate managers was in part based on their ability to negotiate their own deal. If they could not manage that with some comeptence, they were unlikely to be an effective manager when they'd be negoatiating with clients and staff daily.

Of course, I am denied any of that anywhere where checkoff and Rand formula are present.

Worker unions were formed to a)prevent the financial exploitation of workers and b)improve deplorable safety and working conditions. Those idelaistic days are long, long gone in Canada today though. The purpose of unions today is to gain maximum advantage to their members. There is nothing wrong with that since employers do the same, but let;s not pretend otherwise.

There is nothing noble or socially progressive about the union industry. Money comes first, money for members.

[mikedavid00]

Do you honestly expect me to believe that civil servants bringing in less than 50k a year is some sort of elite separate class of a Canadian?

Ahahahahaha

Wait, you're serious? Allow me to laugh even harder.

Yes.

They get pension, benefits, most of them are well are 50k, and they get guaranteed job security. Many working 3 day work weeks (bus drivers etc).

Private sector employees can't seem to keep a job for over a year these days with all the companies cutting back and going under. We get paid much less when you factor in the constant unemployment. So over a 10 year period, the civil servant makes WAY more money.

They are indeed a separate, special class of people. They are the next layer above in the pyramid of our social structure. I get half of my money stolen from me by the upper layers of the pyramid.

Look at this old photo from 1911 that I found last night:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.png

I have to say my brother is very smart when he came up with his pyramid theory. We actually made a video meant for Youtube going into depth about the Canadian pyramid structure, pay rates, salaries, etc. I laid out our social class on a white board with numbers and stats to back it up. I went into pay scales of people at the bottom of the pyramid showing that 70% of the bottom rung make in the 10$-15$/h range.

Actually when I was in the 10-15/h range, all that worked around me were struggling, older Canadians that made those wages for most of their lives and couldn't break out. I only made more of myself because I moved and took a huge risk. But I was young, single, and could do it.

[mikedavid00]

Of course, I am denied any of that anywhere where checkoff and Rand formula are present.

Lol..

[mikedavid00]

If there were no minimum wage, WalMart would pay less than it does. Why wouldn't it?

Not necessarily.

What would happen is the wages would adjust to the specific area.

For instance, thanks to McGuinty, Ontario has a very, very high minimum wage now which has devistated our economy when factoring in gas price increases. Our minimum wage is so high because the Toronto Star ran a story of how this poor, immigrant single mother came from Sri Lanka, had 4 kids, got divorced, couldn't apply for benefits (sponsorship), and minimum wage wasn't enough to pay for her rent. She had like $100 left over for the month.

Instead of preventing this lady and her family into Canada in the first place, or, sending her back home with her children (the logical things to do), McGuinty decided it was high time to raise minimum wage.. a LOT. It went from like $8 to $10.75. ALL the low end pay-scales got bumped up because of that and that feel directly on consumer prices. All the menues get re-done at the all the restaurants and prices went up huge. Portions went down. Tim Hortons posted a notice that coffee prices were going up.

The problem with this, is it raised minimum wage across ALL of Ontario including rural Ontario where rent and living costs are much lower. This caused devastation in those areas for smal; business owners. Prices shot way, way up as minimum wage became a communist 'baseline' wage.

When the gov't sets the minimum wage at $20/h.. what happens? All the jobs become $20/h for 70% of working people. That is essentially communism.

The Walmart should pay what the LOCAL market will bare, because it's a store meant to serve LOCAL communities.

Contrary to what the media tells you, companies really do want to treat their employees well. They want to pay you the highest they can get away with. Large Corporations are a different story sometimes. They want to pay you as little as possible and work you as hard as they can. I worked for a few. I worked at Microsoft actually for a year and a half. It was a very cushy job. Pay was acceptable, benefits sucked. We were treated well. Free drinks from the fridge. Free chocolate milk, etc.

I've worked at very low moral places. Corporations where they wanted to send you home early, squeeze what they could out of you. Pay you low. These places had bad reputations to work. Bell Canada I hear is a terrible place to work.

Whenever I get asked what I want for pay, I always say 'whatever you think is fair'. I always get on the top end of the scale when I take that approach.

[Shwa]

Yes, and the first couple paras of your answer support my contention that it is fiction that wages and terms are negotaible ina unionized environemnt.

Agreed. But it is no fault of the union nor the employer that you can't negotiate individual compensation.

You're utterly wrong about conditions in the private sector. I once employed about 40 people in a branch operation of a medium size corp and every one of them negotiated their pay, vacation time and sometimes other perks. The result was that nearly everybody had different salaries, depending on experience, skillset and ability to negotiate.

I don't subscribe to collective bargaining as a be-all and end-all, but you have to admit, 40 employees versus hundreds, even thousands, and the singular compensation negotiation looks costly. Then again, middle management was never one to sacrifice itself for austerity.

In fact, hiring of subordinate managers was in part based on their ability to negotiate their own deal. If they could not manage that with some comeptence, they were unlikely to be an effective manager when they'd be negoatiating with clients and staff daily. Of course, I am denied any of that anywhere where checkoff and Rand formula are present.

Economies of scale. I wouldn't expect the mom and pop corner store to deal with unions either. Unless they were the Mom & Pop chain.

Worker unions were formed to a)prevent the financial exploitation of workers and b)improve deplorable safety and working conditions. Those idelaistic days are long, long gone in Canada today though. The purpose of unions today is to gain maximum advantage to their members. There is nothing wrong with that since employers do the same, but let;s not pretend otherwise.

Which supports the idea that should unions go, so shall the benefits of one including wages and working conditions.

There is nothing noble or socially progressive about the union industry. Money comes first, money for members.

And health care plans, dental plans, legal plans, health and safety, community services, substance abuse programs, financial aid, education aid programs... no, nothing socially progressive at all. It's all about the money with those darned unions.

[bloodyminded]

Not necessarily.

What would happen is the wages would adjust to the specific area.

You've already said that WalMart will pay more when the market demands it, less when it won't. This is only half-true--WalMart is one of the worst examples you coud use--but ok, it's half-right.

If the market were demanding that people be paid more tha they are...then that would be the case. the bottom line of minimum wage wouldn't matter, because they'd all be getting more anyway.

If the minimum wage were abolioshed, as per the wet dreram of those most servile to wealthy and powerful interests (the fundamental of this issue, though like most sycophants they're scarcely aware of it)...WalMart would be paying much, much less.

Higher wages would be the exception, not the rule...it might occur temporarily in a boom economy...regionally, here and there. but for the most part, they'd pay less. Your hypothesis would be instantly proven wrong, and then you'd defend it all by saying that the choices of WalMart CEO's and minority of pwerfulk shareholdrrs IS the "free market."

That is, the "free market" would be determined by the specific choices of a tiny elite.

Ayn Rand's corpse would have a dusty orgasm; and the class struggles would begin. But at least the religion would be adhered to, which outweighs all other considerations.

The problem with this, is it raised minimum wage across ALL of Ontario including rural Ontario where rent and living costs are much lower. This caused devastation in those areas for smal; business owners. Prices shot way, way up as minimum wage became a communist 'baseline' wage.

Since you keep summoning the word "communist," I see you aren't serious, so what's the point?

When the gov't sets the minimum wage at $20/h.. what happens? All the jobs become $20/h for 70% of working people. That is essentially communism.

You believe--as per your Mcguinty example--that minimum wage is the sole cause of inflation.

So, that's a pretty awesome theory, isn't it?

Minimum wage goes up as a response to higher living costs. The higher living costs occur, and then it is raised.

Look, if you like the idea of intensified class stratification, of the idea of an increasingly suffering working-poor class having less and less while a handful of elites gains more and more, come out and say so. Don't be shy.

The Walmart should pay what the LOCAL market will bare, because it's a store meant to serve LOCAL communities.

No it isn't. It's entire purpose--enshrined purpose, uncontroversially--is to make money for its shareholders.

That's it. Community is irrelevant (in fact a propaganda irritant), beyond a few PR initiatives here and there.

Contrary to what the media tells you, companies really do want to treat their employees well.

The media rarely says anything about it...after all, they're corporate entities themselves. You're just inventing now.

They want to pay you the highest they can get away with.

And WalMart, for example, pays almost everybody virtually exactly the same.

A mathematical impossibility under your scenario.

I've worked at very low moral places. Corporations where they wanted to send you home early, squeeze what they could out of you. Pay you low. These places had bad reputations to work. Bell Canada I hear is a terrible place to work.

Some are better than others? Unquestionably true. "The media" doesn't touch on such matters at all.

Whenever I get asked what I want for pay, I always say 'whatever you think is fair'. I always get on the top end of the scale when I take that approach.

Many others don't have a "top end," so it's irrelevant. You're told what you'll get, and "negotiations" comprise choosing to stay or leave.

[Shwa]

Best line ever:

"Ayn Rand's corpse would have a dusty orgasm;"

LOFL!!!!

[CPCFTW]

Do you honestly expect me to believe that civil servants bringing in less than 50k a year is some sort of elite separate class of a Canadian?

Ahahahahaha

Wait, you're serious? Allow me to laugh even harder.

You need to find a retirement calculator and see what the real vavlue of a DB pension plan that is based on your 5 highest earning years. The value of the pension plan is probably an additional 20k/yr. One top of health benefits and any overtime pay, it's quite possible that the total compensation for a new hire in the post office is close to 80k/yr.

[GostHacked]

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.

Now that is interesting. Not so much GM, but the financial part which was GMAC. That makes a lot of sense now.

[bloodyminded]

Best line ever:

"Ayn Rand's corpse would have a dusty orgasm;"

LOFL!!!!

Hey, coming from da Shwa, high praise! Thank you.

[Evening Star]

Loving the idea of McGuinty as communist...