CP strike

dre · May 23, 2012

Two wrongs don't make a right. It makes more sense to prevent the wide spread disruption from occurring in the first place.

Not if it means the government interfering with a contract signed by two voluntary entities. Its the governments job to UPHOLD such agreements, not invalidate them. Like I said... we already have a mechanism that allows companies in this position to restructure their debts and obligations.

punked · May 23, 2012

Not customers, the economy.

The Conservatives scream the economy about anything and everything under the sun. Sooner or later that dog is going to stop hunting.

Why we in Afghanistan............THE ECONOMY

Why do they need to intervene in the private sector..............THE ECONOMY

Tax Cuts....................THE ECONOMY

Spending cuts...................THE ECONOMY

15% cut in wages................THE ECONOMY

Yah we get it. Although at some point in time people are going to start asking why and then you guys are going to have explain.

Smallc · May 23, 2012

The Conservatives scream the economy about anything and everything under the sun.

Only things that actually have to do with the economy. I wouldn't expect an NDP partisan to understand that though.

dre · May 23, 2012

Not customers, the economy.

Theres about ten billion different situations where you could make the case for the government overturning contracts with the goal of helping the economy.

Smallc · May 23, 2012

Theres about ten billion different situations where you could make the case for the government overturning contracts with the goal of helping the economy.

Maybe so. The country's largest airline, post office, and second largest rail hauler are pretty easy examples though.

TimG · May 23, 2012

Not if it means the government interfering with a contract signed by two voluntary entities.

The government is not interfering in the contracts or the negotiations. All the government is doing is saying the parties have no right to harm innocent third parties because they cannot agree.

Its the governments job to UPHOLD such agreements, not invalidate them. Like I said... we already have a mechanism that allows companies in this position to restructure their debts and obligations.

And that will be where CP goes if it cant convince the union to agree. Bond holders don't need a right to strike to protect their interests. Why do unions? Edited May 23, 2012 by TimG

dre · May 23, 2012

The government is not interfering in the contracts or the negotiations. All the government is doing is saying the parties have no right to harm innocent third parties because they cannot agree.

And that will be where CP goes if it cant convince the union to agree. Bond holders don't need a right to strike to protect their interests. Why do unions?

The government is not interfering in the contracts or the negotiations. All the government is doing is saying the parties have no right to harm innocent third parties because they cannot agree.

That depends on any written contracts between these "innocent third parties" and those companies. In the absense of that no person can force another into servitute.

And that will be where CP goes if it cant convince the union to agree.

Ok.

Bond holders don't need a right to strike to protect their interests. Why do unions?

:lol:

CPCFTW · May 24, 2012

How is anyone forced into servitude? If you can't strike, and you can't agree to the terms of your employment, you can quit and find a new employer.

Topaz · May 24, 2012

CP knows that this government will order the workers back to work if an agreement can't be reached, so CP don't have to put a really effort in the talks but on the other side, if a strike does come down then the economy of the country comes to a stand still and probably for that very reason CP could never be sold to a private company. Of course, the seating government, could get involved because of the effect on the economy, which puts a mark against the workers.

Topaz · May 24, 2012

And yet you have no problem doing the same to MPs, no matter how long they've served, no matter what was agreed to.

It's very hard to feel sorry for the MP's, well SOME MP's. They gave themselves a raise in wages and in pensions and we don't get a say and its our money! How many people can get a pension at 55? I just think government should treat the hands that feed them like they treat themselves. If workers have their pensions reduced or taken away, then its the tax payer down the road that will be supporting them on social programs. As long as BOTH sides are bargaining in good faith, then let them comes to terms on their own, without the government jumping in even before the strike starts.

dre · May 24, 2012

How is anyone forced into servitude? If you can't strike, and you can't agree to the terms of your employment, you can quit and find a new employer.

I prefer a balance of power between labor and employers. All the union bashers should brush up on the history of labor rights in this country... Labor had to fight tooth and nail for almost everything they have ever gotten, and we arent just talking about wages, but basic safety standards as well.

Collective bargaining is a fundamental human right in any society where the free association of individuals is allowed, and in countries where there was no labor movement workers live in total squallor and endure unsafe conditions.

Edited May 24, 2012 by dre

dre · May 24, 2012

And yet you have no problem doing the same to MPs, no matter how long they've served, no matter what was agreed to.

Stop trotting out this terrible analogy. Politicians can simply give themselves higher wages and benefits. Nobody has to "agree" to anything. The people that pay their salaries are not even consulted.

To compare this with the collective bargaining process in the private sector is ridiculous. Unions cant increase their wages and benefits with the stroke of a pen like politicians can.

Smallc · May 24, 2012

Stop trotting out this terrible analogy. Politicians can simply give themselves higher wages and benefits. Nobody has to "agree" to anything. The people that pay their salaries are not even consulted.

Oh really? Last I checked, we were consulted about every 4 years...even more than that, lately.

To compare this with the collective bargaining process in the private sector is ridiculous. Unions cant increase their wages and benefits with the stroke of a pen like politicians can.

Neither can politicians. Enough of them have to agree for anything to go forward. The analogy is apt.

There is no reason that this particular group of politicians should suddenly have the rules changed midstream. The same goes for people who were promised defined benefit pensions.

Smallc · May 24, 2012

.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Smallc

dre · May 24, 2012

Oh really? Last I checked, we were consulted about every 4 years...even more than that, lately.

Neither can politicians. Enough of them have to agree for anything to go forward. The analogy is apt.

There is no reason that this particular group of politicians should suddenly have the rules changed midstream. The same goes for people who were promised defined benefit pensions.

We were not consulted about politicians wages and benefits that I can remember.

There is no reason that this particular group of politicians should suddenly have the rules changed midstream. The same goes for people who were promised defined benefit pensions.

Like I said... theres a huge different between perks that policitians give themselves, and those fought for during the collective bargaining process. One group can arbitrarily raise their own wages without even a 5 minute conversation with their employers, the other has to put their jobs on the line.

Smallc · May 24, 2012

We were not consulted about politicians wages and benefits that I can remember.

That's not how representative democracy works, and you know it.

Like I said... theres a huge different between perks that policitians give themselves, and those fought for during the collective bargaining process. One group can arbitrarily raise their own wages without even a 5 minute conversation with their employers, the other has to put their jobs on the line.

Put their jobs on the line? A politician will lose their job far before most union workers at a non bankrupt company.

dre · May 24, 2012

Oh yes, and I love the way people keep changing my name to smallC, especially when you consider that I just, in a thread, TODAY, talked bout how the government (this government) was wrong on two different counts in 2008 - 2009. Keep it up though. This place is becoming a....not nice place.

I honestly did not mean to do that.

Smallc · May 24, 2012

I retract it then. It isn't the first time I've seen it done in the last little while though (not by you).

You're usually one of the smarter posters on here, so I was surprised.

dre · May 24, 2012

That's not how representative democracy works, and you know it.

Put their jobs on the line? A politician will lose their job far before most union workers at a non bankrupt company.

That's not how representative democracy works, and you know it.

But no party compaigned on reducing politicians wages or benefits... how on earth can you say I was consulted? Tell me how I could have voted to cap or reduce politicians wages and benefits?

Put their jobs on the line? A politician will lose their job far before most union workers at a non bankrupt company.

Maybe but I said that in the context of wages and benefits. Politicans can simply make theirs larger... A Union has bargain. Its an apples and oranges comparison.

Smallc · May 24, 2012

But no party compaigned on reducing politicians wages or benefits... how on earth can you say I was consulted? Tell me how I could have voted to cap or reduce politicians wages and benefits?

No one is really complaining about them loud enough for a party to do that (good thing too, IMO)

Maybe but I said that in the context of wages and benefits. Politicans can simply make theirs larger... A Union has bargain. Its an apples and oranges comparison.

Well, like I said, the politicians do have to decide collectively, and they have to do it in a way that won't outrage their employer...so it is somewhat similar.

dre · May 24, 2012

I retract it then. It isn't the first time I've seen it done in the last little while though (not by you).

You're usually one of the smarter posters on here, so I was surprised.

Thanx for the benefit of the doubt. We can butt heads on some issues but I absolutely DO respect you as a reasonable and measured guy.

Smallc · May 24, 2012

Thanx for the benefit of the doubt. We can butt heads on some issues but I absolutely DO respect you as a reasonable and measured guy.

I respect what you say too, generally...except for the hate you have on for representative democracy

dre · May 24, 2012

No one is really complaining about them loud enough for a party to do that (good thing too, IMO)

Well, like I said, the politicians do have to decide collectively, and they have to do it in a way that won't outrage their employer...so it is somewhat similar.

Fair enough but they dont have to threaten to walk off the job to get decent wages and safe working conditions.

Im not in a union, and I never have been, and I know that sometimes they take things too far. But the right to collectively bargain and the right to strike have been absolutely essential to our society. Without them theres no middle class, no safe working conditions, no limits to hours worked per day, no overtime pay... nothing.

Its a good system IMO, that has worked out pretty well for both sides.

Smallc · May 24, 2012

That's what I always say about our form of democracy haha.

You're right, it is an important part of our society. I just think that the timing on the part of the unions is bad. No one is going to win this.

dre · May 24, 2012

That's what I always say about our form of democracy haha.

You're right, it is an important part of our society. I just think that the timing on the part of the unions is bad. No one is going to win this.

Nobody is supposed to win. My guess is that there will be some kind of settlement sooner or later. Both sides have some leverage.

I wonder if - in the big picture - this relationship is too adversarial by its nature. Maybe the competing interests of ownership, management, and labor makes companies less profitable, and less successful?

An interesting case in point is Harmac...

http://www.harmacpacific.com/media_022709.php

Thats a pulp and paper mill just down the road... The multinational that used to own it was losing money and planned to shutter it. The workers got together and purchased a share of the company, and as owners got to look at the companies real books. Once they saw the numbers they willingly took a paycut and production costs at the mill went way down. Its profitable now and last year the employee/owners got their first dividend.

The workers only have a minority position in the company... Dont quote me, but I think its about 20%. Im not promoting communism But it was enough to refocus the efforts of labor and management on the health and profitability of the company.

Another interesting model might be the one used in some pro sports. Instead of labor negotiating wages with ownership, they negotiate for a certain piece of the total pie. So labor might get 45% of revenue and ownership might get 55%. In this scenario both "sides" have a direct stake in growing the total size of the pie. Theres still labor disputes though... over the size of the pieces... hmmmm...

Edited May 24, 2012 by dre