Public sector unions for non-businesses - should they exist?

[Moonlight Graham]

A positive that can be said of labour unions in the private sector is that the owners/capitalists, who make profits by using the labour of their employees, can be essentially coerced through collective bargaining to share more of the profits from company with its employees.

Now, some public sector employees work for crown corporations and can help generate a profit (in theory) for the government, ie: the LCBO. Maybe crown corporation employees are more deserving of union rights because they can generate profit, I'm not sure.

However, other public sector employees (those who work in the bureaucracy or Parliament) don't work to generate profits. Other public sector employees work for welfare services, such as teachers or social workers, and these people obviously aren't in the business of profit. They are paid by the taxpayer to provide social services for the benefit of people within society.

So should public sector employees who work for non-profit entities like school boards, child welfare agencies, different bureaucratic departments in Ottawa etc. be able to form unions and have the right to strike etc.? Should they be able to hold the taxpayer essentially hostage for wages/benefits in comparison to private employer who is clearly reaping a substantial monetary (as opposed to social) reward for their labour? Should the government and their budgets, ie: McGuinty vs the teachers, be able to dictate the pay/benefits of these public employees without having to deal with union bargaining tactics?

Edited December 11, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[Bonam]

So should public sector employees who work for non-profit entities like school boards, child welfare agencies, different bureaucratic departments in Ottawa etc. be able to form unions and have the right to strike etc.?

Yes, they should be able to form unions, but they should NOT be able to require that everyone that works in those organizations be a member of the union (or pay a fee in lieu of membership). Being free to form and join a union is an important right, but being able to work in your chosen field without being forced to join a union is equally important.

Should they be able to hold the taxpayer essentially hostage for wages/benefits in comparison to private employer who is clearly reaping a substantial monetary (as opposed to social) reward for their labour?

No, they should not be able to hold taxpayer's hostage.

Should the government and their budgets, ie: McGuinty vs the teachers, be able to dictate the pay/benefits of these public employees without having to deal with union bargaining tactics?

No, the premier should not have direct control of teacher's salaries, nor the salaries of other public sector workers. Salaries should be controlled by those who are best able to evaluate each individual teacher's work and merits. In the case of schools, that would likely be the principal, similar to how a manager is able to set the salaries of the employees under him/her. The government should allot a specific amount of funding to each school (based on enrollment numbers and other relevant considerations), and the principal should negotiate with each teacher on an individual basis as to their salary. Such an approach works well for individuals who have a useful skillset that is hard to replace, and good teachers are certainly such individuals, since they are few and far between compared to the large numbers of poor teachers. Teachers who contribute a lot of their extra time to help the school function smoothly, do extracurricular activities and clubs, etc, would likely be rewarded by competent principals, while teachers who do the bare minimum would be less likely to be rewarded (or could even be dismissed and replaced with more enthusiastic ones). This would make a whole lot more sense than decisions based on seniority.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Bonam

[August1991]

A positive that can be said of labour unions in the private sector is that the owners/capitalists, who make profits by using the labour of their employees, can be essentially coerced through collective bargaining to share more of the profits from company with its employees.

Huh? Then why are unions increasingly in the public sector?

MG, unions in modern Canada are largely an affair of the public sector.

About 75% of public sector employees are unionized (and this percentage is rising) whereas about 20% of private sector employees are unionized (and this percentage is falling).

Is it any wonder? The LCBO (or Hydro-Quebec) are monopolies. If I want to buy electricity in Quebec or whisky in Ontario, I have only one seller. These organisations earn monopoly profits, protected by the State. Unions have gravitated to these State monopolies; union dues are like payroll taxes, or automatic credit card deductions.

----

I was recently standing in a Jean Coutu. I looked around and saw a "post office". Nowadays, we buy stamps and pick up packages in a pharmacy. Years ago, there were post offices and postal strikes.

Imagine.

Edited December 11, 2012 by August1991

[dre]

So should public sector employees who work for non-profit entities like school boards, child welfare agencies, different bureaucratic departments in Ottawa etc. be able to form unions and have the right to strike etc.?

Absolutely in fact public servants have one of the best cases for unionization... They work for an entity with almost limitless power, and the ability to arbitrarily do whatever they want to their employees with the stroke of a pen.

[August1991]

They work for an entity with almost limitless power, and the ability to arbitrarily do whatever they want to their employees with the stroke of a pen.

So, according to you dre, the modern State is tyrannical: it has "almost limitless power".

If you are right, citizens have far more to fear than State employees.

[dre]

So, according to you dre, the modern State is tyrannical: it has "almost limitless power".

If you are right, citizens have far more to fear than State employees.

I dont know if its always "tyrannical". What I do know is that the government is in a unique position of power over its employees, and the ability to arbitrarily change the relationship with their employees in ways private sector employers cannot.

[August1991]

I dont know if its always "tyrannical". What I do know is that the government is in a unique position of power over its employees, and the ability to arbitrarily change the relationship with their employees in ways private sector employers cannot.

And what does that say about the "unique power" of the government over citizens and taxpayers? Or, what happens if union representatives gain access to this "unique power" of government?

dre, i think that you are seeing this problem in a very narrow way.

[Peter F]

So should public sector employees who work for non-profit entities like school boards, child welfare agencies, different bureaucratic departments in Ottawa etc. be able to form unions and have the right to strike etc.?

Absolutely. They provide a service to the employer for an agreed upon compensation. That is the same in the public or private sector. The compensation is up for negotiation either through individual effort or through collective negotiation. The source of funding the negotiated compensation has absolutely no import.

[jacee]

Yes, they should be able to form unions, but they should NOT be able to require that everyone that works in those organizations be a member of the union (or pay a fee in lieu of membership).

I've never understood this concept.

How does that work?

When the union negotiates a raise, those who don't belong to the union (ie, didn't help pay the negotiators) don't get the raise?

Edited December 11, 2012 by jacee

[TimG]

When the union negotiates a raise, those who don't belong to the union (ie, didn't help pay the negotiators) don't get the raise?

Who says the union was required to negotiate the pay raise? The problem with mandatory union membership is it creates a monopoly and all monopolies are abusive. The only way to check the power of this monopoly is to make it optional. If the union wants people to join it needs to constantly demonstrate that it deserves the dues that it wants to collect.

[Bryan]

Public sector unions should be banned outright. They reward incompetence, and set wage and compensation packages that few of the people who actually PAY for it (the taxpayers) can afford for themselves.

Sure, they can form an association if they want, but the terms of employment should be take-it-or-leave-it, and under no circumstances should they be allowed to strike.

[Bryan]

Who says the union was required to negotiate the pay raise? The problem with mandatory union membership is it creates a monopoly and all monopolies are abusive. The only way to check the power of this monopoly is to make it optional. If the union wants people to join it needs to constantly demonstrate that it deserves the dues that it wants to collect.

Absolutely. If the employer makes an offer, and some people decide to take it, the union should have no right to reject it on their behalf.

[jacee]

Who says the union was required to negotiate the pay raise?

Because that's what employees hire union negotiators to do.

So employees who don't help pay for union negotiators don't get the raises, correct?

[jacee]

Absolutely. If the employer makes an offer, and some people decide to take it, the union should have no right to reject it on their behalf.

I see.

And when the union negotiates a better offer for its members, the nonunion employees don't get the new rate because they already settled ... correct?

Edited December 11, 2012 by jacee

[Bonam]

I've never understood this concept.

How does that work?

When the union negotiates a raise, those who don't belong to the union (ie, didn't help pay the negotiators) don't get the raise?

That's correct. Individuals that are not members of the union negotiate their own salaries, on an individual basis. Just like a non-unionized worker would.

[jacee]

That's correct. Individuals that are not members of the union negotiate their own salaries, on an individual basis. Just like a non-unionized worker would.

Can you point to any examples of places where this is in effect, and show how it works?

So you'd have people doing the same work being paid differently, and employers conducting many different negotiations ... sounds chaotic to me. What about new employees? Do they get the union rate or negotiate their own lower rate?

I've heard this suggestion many times, but I can't see how it could work in reality. Some examples would help.

[TimG]

Can you point to any examples of places where this is in effect, and show how it works?

Every unionized shop has managers who are not in the union. They always negotiate their own pay. Why would non-union workers be any different? Edited December 11, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

Every unionized shop has managers who are not in the union. They always negotiate their own pay. Why would non-union workers be any different?

It could be rather time consuming and costly if there are hundreds of employees. Doesn't seem practical for employers to me.

[TimG]

It could be rather time consuming and costly if there are hundreds of employees. Doesn't seem practical for employers to me.

Nonsense. This is how it works in non-union shops everywhere. Unionized shops are less 16% of the private sector. It is rather silly to suggest that it can't be done. Edited December 11, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

Nonsense. This is how it works in non-union shops everywhere. Unionized shops are less 16% of the private sector. It is rather silly to suggest that it can't be done.

The suggestion was that employees in union shops should not be required to join the union.

My question was ... How can that work, with both union and nonunion employees in the same jobs in the same shop?

I can't see it myself.

[Bryan]

The suggestion was that employees in union shops should not be required to join the union.

My question was ... How can that work, with both union and nonunion employees in the same jobs in the same shop?

I can't see it myself.

It would work the same as any non union shop, many separate contracts.

[Peter F]

It won't. Employee's doing the same job will all get the same pay - excluding piece work or percentages.

There is no negotiating seperate contracts. In fact there's no negotiating anything. The employer makes an offer and its take it or leave it. The individual can negotiate nothing in a sea of other like individuals.

Not to mention the resulting staff issues if you could negotiate...

http://www.cfee.org/en/

Hockey Star Wars

Episode 1: Gordie Howe and the Labour Market

Prologue: Not so long ago, in hockey rinks around the country ... individual hockey players negotiated their contracts with the owner of their team. This is how it was done with Gordie Howe, hockey's best player, in the 1950s.

Gordie Howe's contract negotiations were probably the simplest in the history of sport. Each year during training camp, the Detroit Red Wings General Manager, Jack Adams, would offer Howe a completed contract with only the salary left blank. "Just fill in what you're worth, Gord." Every year, regardless of his growing list of records and awards, Howe dutifully added a $1,000raise.

For his part, Howe trusted Adams and owner Bruce Norris to look after him. "I'd always had an agreement with the Red Wings that, because I was one of the best players in the game, I'd always be the highest paid player of the team - in fact, the highest in the League"

In 1968, Bob Baun, the tenacious former Leaf, was traded to Detroit. When Howe asked how much Baun thought he was making, Howe was dumbfounded when he guessed within $500 of his $45,000 salary. And when Baun revealed his own $67,000 annual contract, Howe simply gaped in amazement.

What neither player knew was that Baun's old defence partner, Carl Brewer, had just signed with Detroit for $126,000. Nor did they know that the club had netted $1 million annually on hockey operations since 1946, plus another $1 million running the rink, making it one of the most lucrative sport franchises of the time.

Markets work when both buyers and sellers have plentiful and accurate information. Howe (and few others) did not have any idea how much his team made. In fact, the owner's strategy was to tell the players the team was losing money even if it was doing well. They were told that if they asked for too much, the team, perhaps even the League, would have to fold and all the players would be out of a job.

Individual bargaining works in a market where there are both many sellers and many buyers. For most of Howe's career there were only six teams with which to negotiate. Even that did not mean there were six independent buyers bidding for his services. Norris owned the Rangers and the Blackhawks and exercised great influence over Charles Adams, the Bruins' owner, because of loans he made to Adams during the Depression in the early '30s to keep the struggling franchise alive.

Individual bargaining doesn't work if either side doesn't bargain in good faith.

see Canadian Foundation for Economic Education

http://www.cfee.org/en/pdf/labourstudent3.pdf

Edited December 11, 2012 by Peter F

[Bryan]

It won't. Employee's doing the same job will all get the same pay - excluding piece work or percentages.

There is no negotiating seperate contracts. In fact there's no negotiating anything. The employer makes an offer and its take it or leave it. The individual can negotiate nothing in a sea of other like individuals.

Not to mention the resulting staff issues if you could negotiate...

Of course you can negotiate. In most private sector jobs, that's absolutely the case. Everyone at my work negotiated their own salaries when they were hired -- there is NO set wage at any position.

[TimG]

Individual bargaining works in a market where there are both many sellers and many buyers.

This is exactly what the market is like for most employees. The NHL is the exception. Edited December 11, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The point is that the more people that do this, the less bargaining power the union would have. There are such open shops, but the number of non-represented workers has controlled. Otherwise, it would make no sense.