Job's for Life

[Boges]

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/07/union-brawl-for-city-hall

TORONTO - Mayor Rob Ford’s administration wants to kill “jobs for life” and is setting the stage for a lockout next year, CUPE Local 416 president Mark Ferguson charged.

The union leader confirmed Monday that city officials kicked off bargaining by revealing they want workers to surrender the employment security clause, popularly called “jobs for life”, in this round of contract negotiations.

“They are looking to eradicate employment security and many other important provisions within our agreement,” Ferguson said Monday night.

“It is a direct attack on city employees and one that is untenable in the end.”

“If it has value for an employee it is under attack,” he added.

Ferguson bristled at the phrase “jobs for life” - a term coined by former Mayor Mel Lastman’s administration during the 2002 strike - arguing “nobody has a job for life.”

“It doesn’t cover 1,700 of our temporary employees and employees are subject to termination for just cause with regularity,” he said.

The provision guarantees permanent employees who lose their job to contracting out remain employed by the city through redeployment to another job in another area.

Not even so called "1 percenters" get that kind of perk.

I heard it explained on the radio. If you have 10 years of tenure and management decides your job isn't needed anymore they are required by law to find you another job within the city.

Sure that would be nice if we all had that kind of job security but c'mon even left-wingers on this board have to concede that a job perk like this isn't good.

Oh and I like how this Dooshnozzle Ferguson complains that he has to temporarily layoff his seasonal staff.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

I will concede that jobs for life aren't sustainable, in an environment where real wages and benefits are constantly dropping - if somebody concedes that nothing is being done to create well-paying and secure jobs.

Then that person would have to explain why people are expected to accept that condition, rather than strike for whatever they have.

I'm sure you wouldn't give up what you have, so do you expect them to ?

[Michael Hardner]

What is a professional apostropher making these days by the way ?

[Boges]

I will concede that jobs for life aren't sustainable, in an environment where real wages and benefits are constantly dropping - if somebody concedes that nothing is being done to create well-paying and secure jobs.

Then that person would have to explain why people are expected to accept that condition, rather than strike for whatever they have.

I'm sure you wouldn't give up what you have, so do you expect them to ?

It's a difficult problem to confront. Not sure what the answer is. Ironically neither do the people that are camping out in public parks all over the world.

But a policy like this makes it impossible for a work force to evolve and make efficiencies.

No private company could even think about putting this in their collective agreement. Why is it that a public union is allowed to have a policy like this?

Edited November 8, 2011 by Boges

[Boges]

What is a professional apostropher making these days by the way ?

Not that much.

I did see that after I posted. My bad.

[cybercoma]

I don't really see it as a perk. "Jobs for life" is a dysphemism at best, considering anyone can be fired for just cause.

The actual clause states that "there shall be no new contracting out of work ... resulting directly or indirectly in the layoff or loss of employment of permanent employees" (p. 43). The purpose of the clause is clearly to keep the city from firing a bunch of employees, then hiring out the work to a sub-contractor that is likely not unionized and does not provide their employees with the same working conditions, pay, benefits, and job security. While some people are going to say that the city should be able to cut costs wherever it can, the problem here, I believe, is an ethical one. It's not that the jobs are eliminated so these people are fired. That would be just cause for serverance of employment. It's that they're replacing union labour with subcontracted non-unionized labour. They're not eliminating the jobs but replacing the employees with unprotected, disenfranchised labour.

Edited November 8, 2011 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

No private company could even think about putting this in their collective agreement.

It's still difficult to fire people with such an agreement in place isn't it ?

I suspect that this is a negotiating tactic. In any case, it's on the table. Let the games begin.

[cybercoma]

Forgot the link to the contract: http://www.toronto.ca/employment/pdf/mosl416_07_09.pdf

[Boges]

It's not that the jobs are eliminated so these people are fired. That would be just cause for serverance of employment. It's that they're replacing union labour with subcontracted non-unionized labour. They're not eliminating the jobs but replacing the employees with unprotected, disenfranchised labour.

What job other than public service unions haven't had to deal with those realities?

I don't like it.

I don't like that jobs in my industry are going to India.

What makes garbage workers in the City of Toronto so special?

[Boges]

The fact is there are some jobs that aren't nearly as valuable as they used to be.

But their are jobs that are valuable. People have to evolve.

In this socialized country we live in the government offers help for people who find their line of work downsized or obsolete.

[cybercoma]

What job other than public service unions haven't had to deal with those realities?

I don't like it.

I don't like that jobs in my industry are going to India.

What makes garbage workers in the City of Toronto so special?

I've never understood this argument. These employees shouldn't be protected from the highly unethical practice of being fired and replaced with folks that are practically indentured servants because that's "reality". The reality shouldn't be, especially with public employees because their employers are non-profit, that we're driving down Canadians standard of living by eliminating jobs with benefits, security and a livable wage and replacing them jobs that have no benefits, little if any security (contractors can lose their contracts at any time), and wages that make it nearly impossible to support a family.

We're a developed, industrial nation. Our benchmark ought to be a society where someone can support a family working a fulltime job at 40 hours a week. For those that would like to work 60 hours a week, they should be able to reap the benefits beyond a livable wage. They should make extra for their extra work, for foregoing time with their family and friends. People shouldn't need to work 80 hours a week just to make enough to pay for food, clothing and shelter for their family with absolutely nothing left over for their retirement or emergencies.

I don't believe it's a enough to say, "this is just the way it is," when it comes to taking jobs, especially public jobs, that allow a person to live comfortably with jobs that only result in people struggling to get by. I believe it's highly unethical. It reduces the wages and standard of living for wage labourers and the working class and increases the profits for capital class. This is one of the reasons why the disparity in financial wealth is increasing so dramatically in this country.

[cybercoma]

The fact is there are some jobs that aren't nearly as valuable as they used to be.

But their are jobs that are valuable. People have to evolve.

In this socialized country we live in the government offers help for people who find their line of work downsized or obsolete.

It's not that the work is downsized or obsolete, it's that they want to cut the pay and benefits of the employees. They force subcontractors to bid for deals, which keeps what they pay their labour down. This is nothing more than a way to drive down the price of labour. It's actually mor 9eof a problem in the public service because more people falling behind means more government intervention in social programs. You can't say, "fuck it. Let them fend for themselves," because they will. If society doesn't provide people with a means for their goals, in this case getting by, they will find their own creative ways of achieving it, often leading to crime (since the conventional means are becoming inadequate).

[Boges]

It's not that the work is downsized or obsolete, it's that they want to cut the pay and benefits of the employees. They force subcontractors to bid for deals, which keeps what they pay their labour down. This is nothing more than a way to drive down the price of labour. It's actually mor 9eof a problem in the public service because more people falling behind means more government intervention in social programs. You can't say, "fuck it. Let them fend for themselves," because they will. If society doesn't provide people with a means for their goals, in this case getting by, they will find their own creative ways of achieving it, often leading to crime (since the conventional means are becoming inadequate).

You really think that's what's at work in this instance and not a Union that demands more than the public can pay?

You're making blanket statements about the problems faced in all of the Western World.

That's not exactly the case here these workers get benefits not seen by many in the working force even before this latest recession.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Boges

[Shwa]

You really think that's what's at work in this instance and not a Union that demands more than the public can pay?

So a Union negotiating in good faith with an employer, ought to be subject to a collective bargaining contract nullification at the employers whim because... what was that again? The Union "demands" more than the public can pay? Seems to me that the "public can pay" the last time the contract was negotiated now doesn't it? So what changed?

Ideology is what changed, not any public ability to pay, don't kid yourself. That is as horseshit a reason as I have ever heard.

You're making blanket statements about the problems faced in all of the Western World.

Who is? Let me quote:

It's a difficult problem to confront. Not sure what the answer is. Ironically neither do the people that are camping out in public parks all over the world.

Somehow you have managed to involve the Occupy movement in this Boges.

That's not exactly the case here these workers get benefits not seen by many in the working force even before this latest recession.

At least not seen by you since your employment sector is getting shat upon and there is nothing you can do about it because, most likely, your sector doesn't have the brains or balls or organize. The Ideology of Misery Loves Company?

Edited November 9, 2011 by Shwa

[cybercoma]

You really think that's what's at work in this instance and not a Union that demands more than the public can pay?

Unions can demand whatever they want. Ultimately the city and the union come to an agreement.

What I'm pointing out is that this is not a case of people's jobs not being needed anymore, as you say in the OP. If you read the clause itself, it's clear that this is about the city replacing employees, not eliminating jobs. A job that's eliminated is justifiable cause for termination. A job that is still needed, but an employee is fired and that job is contracted out, that's a different story altogether. That's nothing more than an attacking on the working class and unions.

[cybercoma]

I'm just going to keep posting this video in all the labour relations threads.

[jacee]

Not sure what Ford's on about. The clause reported doesn't guarantee jobs. People can be fired for poor performance. Jobs can be contracted out. The clause just involves bumping rights by seniority. Those with little seniority do get laid off.

The only thing he's going after is the right to fire whoever he doesn't like. Given his explosive personality, that promises quite a few successful lawsuits against the city.

So ... it continues ... with massive lockouts planned in advance.

What a disgusting character he is.

[cybercoma]

Maybe he wants to can those pesky 911 operators.

[Boges]

At least not seen by you since your employment sector is getting shat upon and there is nothing you can do about it because, most likely, your sector doesn't have the brains or balls or organize. The Ideology of Misery Loves Company?

Classy of you to typecast employees who's union can't hide demands of higher taxes for more revenue as being brainless.

Lots of sectors are having problems.

Would you say the same about Auto workers who were forced to give major concessions? Unionized Steel Workers who go on strike and their corporate overlords pretty much laugh? Forestry workers? Any number of unionized manufacturing jobs that have been lost?

This isn't a Union vs non-Union thing. It's a private v public sector thing.

The truth is, in my industry, the union jobs go first because they are more expensive and their divisions are usually so overstaffed that cutting is easy.

One sector where you don't see a massive problem with employment and wages is the skilled trades. Unionized or not. Why? because there is demand for their skills.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Boges

[cybercoma]

Goodyear is the example you're looking for. And, yes. What they did was a dirtbag move.

[mentalfloss]

The truth is, in my industry, the union jobs go first because they are more expensive and their divisions are usually so overstaffed that cutting is easy.

Got income statement?

[Boges]

Got income statement?

Even if I did I wouldn't share it on a messageboard.

[Shwa]

Classy of you to typecast employees who's union can't hide demands of higher taxes for more revenue as being brainless.

You mean, like the police? Recall that Ford cut revenues also. Duh.

Lots of sectors are having problems.

Would you say the same about Auto workers who were forced to give major concessions? Unionized Steel Workers who go on strike and their corporate overlords pretty much laugh? Forestry workers? Any number of unionized manufacturing jobs that have been lost?

Would I say what? That they are going in the wrong direction?

This isn't a Union vs non-Union thing. It's a private v public sector thing.

Oh, it always is isn't it?

The truth is, in my industry, the union jobs go first because they are more expensive and their divisions are usually so overstaffed that cutting is easy.

Right. It's the unions' fault of course. But, oh, wait. Are you in the private or public sector?

One sector where you don't see a massive problem with employment and wages is the skilled trades. Unionized or not. Why? because there is demand for their skills.

Skilled Trades = Jobs for Life.

[mentalfloss]

Even if I did I wouldn't share it on a messageboard.

It's okay, neither would the rest of the "accountable" conservatives.

[Boges]

Well some people aren't getting a job for life.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/toronto-city-manager-confirms-layoffs-after-buyouts-miss-target/article2232066/

The prospect of labour strife continues to rise at city hall, with Toronto’s top bureaucrat confirming that layoffs are coming after a buyout program expected to cut 700 jobs will only remove 230 employees from the payroll.

“There will be layoffs,” city manager Joseph Pennachetti said Thursday morning. He would not give a target number, saying those details will come on November 28 when next year’s proposed budget is made public.