The Rand Formula

[Hjalmar]

The Rand Formula is under growing attack in Canada

Go to Google News Canada to see the site

[Black Dog]

The Link.

[maplesyrup]

This regressive, libertarian vote, which will give heart to big business lobby groups, like the Fraser Institute, and anti-union commentators, like those who rule the National Post, and pollute open-line radio, was passed by a strong majority of young Liberal delegates attending the meeting.

The one other important area which they left out is the polluting of the discussion boards on the 'net.

If Canadians don't stand up to these bullies we will lose our country, and all the wonderful values it represents.

[willy]

The one other important area which they left out is the polluting of the discussion boards on the 'net.

Freedom for who? The self righteous left?

Democracy is wonderful. The Rand Formula being under attack means that this country is waking up to the regressive government controls that negatively effect our freedom.

[maplesyrup]

Freedom is code for crushing the weaker elements in our society. They have already started to address the issue of bullying in the schoolyard. It is time we started addressing the issue of bullying in the workplace and in our media.

[willy]

Sorry, I just don't follow.

[Black Dog]

The Rand Formula being under attack means that this country is waking up to the regressive government controls that negatively effect our freedom.

More like another attack on the working class. I expect anyone who doesn't belong to a union and therefore doesn't want to pay dues should also be willing to give up whatever benefits thay have aquired under union-negotiated contracts. I'm sure they'd be only too happy to go work for 75 cents an hour in order to prevent "regressive government controls".

[maplesyrup]

Canada needs to upgrade our school system so that students are taught the advantages of a healthy union movement in our society.

Our healthy union movement has brought advantages such as weekends off, summer holidays, overtime over 8 hours a day, and/or 40 hours a week, statutory holidays, days off for sickness and sick benefits, safe working conditions (I.E. WCB), pension plans, etc.

The people that brought the above kind of conditions for our work force are the real Canadian heroes.

[willy]

Maplesyrup, who do all these working people work for?

[cgarrett]

i couldn't agree more ms...

these are things that people just take for granted now! but they are too young or uninformed to know that it was brought about by organized labor.

i was reminded of this recently watching a film called 'margarets museum' about people working as coal miners in the 20's and 30's in eastern canada. just about everyone working there were assured an early death due to accident or eventual mining related disease. and organized labor was met with violence and communist labeling!

[maplesyrup]

Maplesyrup, who do all these working people work for?

Willy.......that statement says a lot.

Slavery was abolished quite a while ago I believe, although I realize some people would like to revive the practice.

One works with people not for people. Employers do not own their employees, and that is the reason we will always need a strong labour movement in Canada.

No one is forcing any employer to be here. If employers don't like the Canadian protections for our workforce go someplace else. There are lots of alternatives.

Business leaders are not the heroes our business run media make them out to be.

What was it Dave Barrett said: "The easiest thing in the world to do in a capitalist society is to make money".

[willy]

No one is forcing any employer to be here. If employers don't like the Canadian protections for our workforce go someplace else. There are lots of alternatives.

If people like yourself ever have enough influence they will leave. E.G. Ontario under NDP or BC in the 90s (mining industry destroyed, Alcan stops expansion, forestry sector gutted, oil and gas lags way behind Alberta, Finning moved to Edmonton). By the end of NDP rule we have no major private companies headquartered in Vancouver.

Businesses only survive if they make money. For this they provide a tax base and wages. Successful companies work with employees to keep them healthy, learning and engaged. If they don’t staff turnover and lack of productivity will lose them money.

To go along your line of logic, if employees don't like the working conditions they can quite.

[Black Dog]

Businesses only survive if they make money. For this they provide a tax base and wages. .

These days, North America is hemorrhaging (sorry: "outsourcing") jobs to the Third World. And it's not just low-paying jobs either, as even higher paying non-manufacturing jobs are flying off to India etc. where employers can get away with paying less. To folks like Willy here, this is a a good thing and an example of why we need to curb what little power the workers have.

Of course, this is entirely in line with the kind of thinking that stresses the gains of the few (corporations and their shareholders) over the needs of society at large. In Willyworld, we'd have jobs, sure. But they'd be garbage jobs with questionable conditions. That's one thing you can take to the bank.

Successful companies work with employees to keep them healthy, learning and engaged. If they don’t staff turnover and lack of productivity will lose them money

Nice. But false. A quick look at the history of labour and capitalism as a whole shows that capitalism doesn't police itself and that labuor must have a voice. It wasn't business that pushed for minimum wage, Social Security, the weekend, overtime, pensions, child labor laws and the eight-hour work day. It was the workers.

[maplesyrup]

This winner take all mentality does not work. It is short term gain for long term pain. This idea that you have to crush the workers and their unions results in substantial increases in poverty, illness, and crime. That is the old school mentality. Is that the kind of society you want? I don't.

The reality is we have an abundance of material things in Canada. It is the greed factor that is creating our problems, and we need our governments to control it.

Business is an important part of our society, but by its very nature, will never be the most important.

What Canada lacks is a progressive media outlet with a worker's point of view. I keep hearing rumblings about it, and it sure would be nice to see it get off the ground to offset a lot of the nonsense eminating from places such as Vancouver Sun - Province, etc.

[willy]

Turns out that Canada rates well as country for the US to outsource too.

http://www.cio.com/archive/071504/guide.html

[Hjalmar]

More like another attack on the working class. I expect anyone who doesn't belong to a union and therefore doesn't want to pay dues should also be willing to give up whatever benefits thay have aquired under union-negotiated contracts. I'm sure they'd be only too happy to go work for 75 cents an hour in order to prevent "regressive government controls".

If labour unions are so great why isn't 100% of the workforce unionized? In the 50's the USA had a unionization rate exceeding 50% and are now down to 13% overall. Why do you think that is? Because they have woken up to new realities in the world today where everyone has to compete in a global economy. But Canada lags behind. Labour unions, in their present form, could be the demise of Canada. What applied 25 - 50 years ago is no longer applicable and there are still a number of union supporters who are very slow learners.

As to an attack on the working class -- I am one of those, and so is 75% of the workforce that doesn't belong to a union and don't want any part of a union. They work for their employer and not for the union. As to benefits brought about because of labour unions presence in their area -- you must be kidding!! Over a 10 year period perhaps, labour unions have managed, through coersion, to have their pay increased from $10/hr to $15/hr while the non-union worker has had their pay increase from $10/hr to $10.75/hr. So you are correct when you say they have acquired some benefits -- you do the math!! Most would prefer the pay they had without labour unions influence and at the same time be able to purchase the products required for survival without union influence.

As to working for 75 cents per hour -- everything is relevant. You live in a heavily unionized jurisdiction and all prices are higher.

[Black Dog]

Turns out that Canada rates well as country for the US to outsource too.

http://www.cio.com/archive/071504/guide.html

And did you see why? Geographic proximity and cultural affinity. The big con? High labour costs.

Another trend is U.S. companies balancing their offshore risk by going to neighbors like Canada and Mexico. Canadian suppliers can handle highly complex projects better than other nations, and our neighbor to the north has a deep familiarity with U.S. business mores. And Mexico continues to offer an attractive cost structure. Both have geographic proximity going for them in the race for U.S. outsourcing contracts.

That said, if we are such an attractive destination, things like the Rand Formula don't seem to be a deterrent.

[Black Dog]

If labour unions are so great why isn't 100% of the workforce unionized? In the 50's the USA had a unionization rate exceeding 50% and are now down to 13% overall. Why do you think that is? Because they have woken up to new realities in the world today where everyone has to compete in a global economy

Yeah, let's join the race to the bottom.

First: unions have declined because of a variety of factors such as corruption and malaise, as well as an ongoing organized attack on organized labour by the business class.

And let me ask you: who loses? Non-union workers apparently. Who benefits the most? Not the workers, union or otherwise.

As to an attack on the working class -- I am one of those, and so is 75% of the workforce that doesn't belong to a union and don't want any part of a union. They work for their employer and not for the union. As to benefits brought about because of labour unions presence in their area -- you must be kidding!! Over a 10 year period perhaps, labour unions have managed, through coersion, to have their pay increased from $10/hr to $15/hr while the non-union worker has had their pay increase from $10/hr to $10.75/hr. So you are correct when you say they have acquired some benefits -- you do the math!!

Isn't this the best argument for joining a union? Given the choice between a union-negotiated $5/hr increase and a non union $0.75/hour increase, what kind of moron would choose the latter?

Most would prefer the pay they had without labour unions influence and at the same time be able to purchase the products required for survival without union influence

But, according to you, unions are declining in scope and influence. Yet costs (especially for consumer goods) are climbing and wages are falling (in the U.S. where only 13 per cent of people are unionized according to you, wages dropped 17 per cent between 1972 and 1992, with a slight recovery in the early '90s. Since then, they've started dropping again).

What gives?

[willy]

Nice. But false. A quick look at the history of labour and capitalism as a whole shows that capitalism doesn't police itself and that labuor must have a voice.

I do know my capitalist history. Are you sure you do?

Two major management philosophies have shaped management for the last 100 years.

The first was Frederick Taylors Scientific management. He believed that you should break things down into simplistic parts and look to mass production for efficiency. It led to a focus on cost controls and efficiency. This is the dominant influence on most North American business schools but not the only influence.

At the same time Mary Follett developed a philosophy of humanistic management. She looked at the need to motivate and align people to reach business goals. She realized that communication and trust are the foundations of teamwork. Teamwork is the foundation of modern companies achieving success. If you have heard of cross functional work teams, and the focus on employee engagement comes from Ms Follett. Her theories were developed over 100 years ago.

Like a pendulum managers swing back and forth. During the tech boom one was able to see the massive influence of humanistic management. During tough times it is easy for business leaders to limit costs and look to efficiencies as there training has thought.

Unions have had a needed influence on business and government. The bigger question now is, how can they maintain there relevance today. If they manage to put the employees out of work that they represent, nothing is accomplished.

Major Corporations are now being asked to be socially responsible. This involves environmental sustainability, community development, and responsiveness to employee needs. This is a good thing and can also be good for business (e.g. environmental efficiency can bring down energy costs).

These need not be competing demands but empathy and creative thinking can create new opportunities for business, workers, and the communities they operate in. Businesses need to understand what is in it for them or they will fight change. As they should, they only exist to make shareholders money.

My one problem with unions is by thier very nature they fight the success of the company which they need to pay wages and benefits.

[Black Dog]

Major Corporations are now being asked to be socially responsible. This involves environmental sustainability, community development, and responsiveness to employee needs. This is a good thing and can also be good for business (e.g. environmental efficiency can bring down energy costs).

The point is they're being "asked" (that is, told) to do these things. I've little reason to belive, in this age of downsizing, outsourcing and Enron, that corporations would so much as lift a finger to enact socially responsible policies if they didn't have regulatory bodies or labour unions breathing down their necks.

My one problem with unions is by thier very nature they fight the success of the company which they need to pay wages and benefits.

I think that's a distortion. After all, a union that puts its workers out of job isn't helping anyone (and let's not forget that unions are workers).

I think, given the social, political and economic climate of our times, it's vital that labour has a strong voice.

[Cartman]

Willy, I would like to know what kinds of rights you believe a worker is entitled to, if any.

[Hjalmar]

I think that's a distortion. After all, a union that puts its workers out of job isn't helping anyone (and let's not forget that unions are workers).

But that's the very thing that labour unions are doing today -- pricing themselves out of the market. They keep asking for more and continue doing less. Employers today have no choice but to control their costs.

Failing that they have two choices .. outsource to lower wage jurisdictions or go out of business. Die-hard union workers, who appear to be plentiful here, have their blinders on and think of no one but themselves.

I think employers in the private sector will find a solution to control their labour costs if unions don't smarten up. It's the public sector unions that need a wake up call. Governments are giving them too soft a ride.

[Black Dog]

But that's the very thing that labour unions are doing today -- pricing themselves out of the market. They keep asking for more and continue doing less. Employers today have no choice but to control their costs.

Failing that they have two choices .. outsource to lower wage jurisdictions or go out of business. Die-hard union workers, who appear to be plentiful here, have their blinders on and think of no one but themselves.

But as I pointed out, your rhetoric doesn't match the trends (shrinking union prescence+declining real wages). So either your assesment of the state of organized labour is wrong, or your whole premise is.

I expect the real causes of outsourcing aren't that labour costs here are too high (which the widening gap between real wages and profits would support), but that costs are just that much cheaper overseas (this includes wages as well as fewer impediments such as corporate taxes and pesky environmental and labour regulations).

In other words, your argument that unions are to blame for businesses going overseas is, at best, overly simplistic or, at worst, plain wrong.

[willy]

Willy, I would like to know what kinds of rights you believe a worker is entitled to, if any.

We have labour relations regulations, that cover safety, rights of dismissal, ect. This is a good roll for government not unions. A human resources department tends to be a good place to start looking for help or mediation when needed.

I don't think that corporations are intrinsically good. I do think many good things can also be good for business.

As for unions being workers. The union executives do not work in organizations. Buzz Hargrove and Jim Sinclair or full time pains in the butt, paid for by union dues. Thier measure of success in only growth in members.

[Hjalmar]

But as I pointed out, your rhetoric doesn't match the trends (shrinking union prescence+declining real wages). So either your assesment of the state of organized labour is wrong, or your whole premise is.

It matches to a T. The trend today is lower wages and that has to transcend into shrinking union presence. Concessions is the by-word for labour unions today and will be for years to come.