Job's for Life

[August1991]

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.

Cybercoma, in effect, you are saying that a small group of citizens (municipal public sector employees) deserve "job security". Moreover, you think that everyone should enjoy such security.

IME, Leftists are typically zero-sum thinkers so here's a way to understand the question.

The future is risky, and risk is a fact of life. Someone has to assume that risk. (When I use the word "risk", I mean "unpredictable future change".) If we offer security to one group of people, that increases the risk to others. Risk (or rather, insurance) is a zero-sum game.

For example, the Soviet Union tried to eliminate risk completely for most ordinary people - by concentrating all risk on the State, the collective. That can work for awhile but eventually the various risks of change accumulate on whoever assumes them.

In short cybercoma, a goverment cannot make the future certain. The State cannot eliminate risk. At most, it can shift risk between people. For example, the State cannot stop earthquakes. At most, it can organize who pays for the devastation of an earthquake.

-----

I live in Montreal where the municipal blue collar workers have a strong union. Compared to the people who by chance suffer from mental health problems (and often wander the streets of Montreal), who should the State protect against the vagaries, the riskiness, of life?

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

IMHO, other people in this world are more deserving than British people. Edited November 11, 2011 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Cybercoma, in effect, you are saying that a small group of citizens (municipal public sector employees) deserve "job security". Moreover, you think that everyone should enjoy such security.

As Bill (Clint Eastwood) said in Unforgiven: "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it"

Why do we bring in morality (good/bad deserve/don't deserve should/shouldn't) to economic discussions sometimes and not others ? If you want to make it about "deserving" and not about economics, then you'll soon be talking about CEOs and athlete's not 'deserving' their salaries.

Economics is a game, and whatever works is what's right. In some cases, combines and controls are popular and (IMO) they make sense. In other cases, they don't.

IME, Leftists are typically zero-sum thinkers so here's a way to understand the question.

The game isn't zero sum, but at least you recognize it's a game.

The future is risky, and risk is a fact of life. Someone has to assume that risk. (When I use the word "risk", I mean "unpredictable future change".) If we offer security to one group of people, that increases the risk to others. Risk (or rather, insurance) is a zero-sum game.

You aren't offering anything - they have it, and you want to take it away.

IMHO, other people in this world are more deserving than British people.

I don't understand this last part ? British people ?

[cybercoma]

August, I think you've misunderstood what I'm drawing attention to. Unexpected things happen and people lose their jobs. That's not the problem here. This has nothing to do with protecting against the unexpected. As the clause is written, it's quite obvious that it's against replacing unionized employees that can actually make a living at their jobs, with non-unionized sub-contracted labourers that have no benefits and will struggle to get by. As MH stated above, this doesn't have anything to do with people "deserving" job security, it has to do with taking a job (a specific position) and driving down its value. I believe this is one of many, but probably one of the biggest reasons the income gap is growing. Where a person could work a 40 hour week and support a family in the past and businesses were still profitable, now it's practically impossible to live comfortably unless you have 2 incomes in the household. As the working class continues to be gutted by these policies of de-unionization and sub-contracting jobs, the capital class will begin to hurt themselves. As Ford recognized you can sell more cars and make more money if your employees can buy them.

[Bonam]

Where a person could work a 40 hour week and support a family in the past and businesses were still profitable, now it's practically impossible to live comfortably unless you have 2 incomes in the household.

The reason you have to have 2 incomes now and not 50 years ago is because there are almost twice as many workers now. Women joined the workforce over that time frame. Double the supply of labor, so the price of labor gets driven down.

[TimG]

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 complete nonsense. The workers at the subcontracting firm are legally entitled to form a union. If they choose not to that is the workers' choice. The only real difference is the city can fire the subcontracting firm if there is a strike which means the workers can no longer hold taxpayers hostage (i.e. the unions would now be subject to the market forces that every private sector union has to deal with today). This can only be described as a good thing. Edited November 11, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The reason you have to have 2 incomes now and not 50 years ago is because there are almost twice as many workers now. Women joined the workforce over that time frame. Double the supply of labor, so the price of labor gets driven down.

It would seem so, but in economics I don't think it's so: this is known as the 'lump of labour' fallacy I believe.