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

Argus · December 13, 2012

Should the union decide what is best for me and my family? Should the union dictate what political party I support via my "dues"?

I'm a free man... A big boy, very successful all on my own. Now diapers needed here.

The union doesn't dictate to anyone who to vote for. And only a miniscule portion of your dues are used for such causes. Besides which your union dues are tax deductible.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Argus

Bonam · December 13, 2012

The cost of living is very low in Bangladesh, too, so its salaries are 'normalized' to that. Bangladesh also has very low unemployment.

We're talking state to state comparisons. Texas is not Bangladesh.

Most of the lower unemployment rates have come from corporations moving work from other states, to the ones where they can pay cheaper salaries, fewer, or no benefits, and not have to worry about unions. So it works in that regard, in moving jobs from one part of the country to another.

Data? How many of the jobs are moved, versus how many are jobs that are created, or not lost, or not outsourced to other countries?

And this is what you think is good for the middle class, right?

I think the middle class would do best if it didn't need to be unionized to begin with. Many members of the middle class are not unionized: engineers, scientists, doctors, lawyers, private sector office workers of most types, etc etc etc.

Bonam · December 13, 2012

Besides which your union dues are tax deductible.

Even worse. The government exempts these dues and thus has to shift its revenue-gathering to more productive sectors of the economy.

Argus · December 13, 2012

We're talking state to state comparisons. Texas is not Bangladesh.]

Give it time...

Data? How many of the jobs are moved, versus how many are jobs that are created, or not lost, or not outsourced to other countries?

You're the one advocating for it.

I think the middle class would do best if it didn't need to be unionized to begin with. Many members of the middle class are not unionized: engineers, scientists, doctors, lawyers, private sector office workers of most types, etc etc etc.

Doctors and lawyers are unionized. They just don't call them unions. Many scientists are in unions because of the organizations they work for. Same for engineers. But that's beside the point. Your trying to find areas where people do well without unions doesn't detract from the fact that areas where there is a high union membership have generally much better working conditions and benefits than other areas.

Argus · December 13, 2012

Even worse. The government exempts these dues and thus has to shift its revenue-gathering to more productive sectors of the economy.

And how much income does the government forego from all the corporate tax cuts and tax breaks which are in place? Union dues are a pittance compared to that.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Argus

Fletch 27 · December 13, 2012

350k just to an NDP froo-haha? That they had to pay back btw? That's almost 150k in deductions... For a single days get together and stroking the egos!

Bonam · December 13, 2012

Doctors and lawyers are unionized. They just don't call them unions.

A professional association is not a union. You would do well to research the important differences.

Bryan · December 13, 2012

Why, exactly, would someone not want to belong to a union?

Why are you opposed to freedom?

dre · December 13, 2012

A professional association is not a union. You would do well to research the important differences.

In many case they are the exact same... take provincial medical associations for example which negotiate wages on behalf of their members.

dre · December 13, 2012

Why are you opposed to freedom?

Youre making an ideological judgement in a vacuum. We know what things were like for workers prior to organization, and freedom is not how most people would describe it. The fact is unions have greatly increased the freedom of workers. Freedom to not be forced to work 70 hours a week. Freedom to not get fired for getting sick. Freedom to not be fired without due cause. Freedom to take weekends off. Freedom to not have to work with asbestos with no respirator/safety equipment.

August1991 · December 13, 2012

You only have to compare the working conditions of a place like the US, which has very few, very weak unions, and a place like Germany, or the Nordic countries. The working conditions in the latter are far and away better than the US in every respect.

Argus, I notice that you don't mention conditions in Greece, Spain or Italy.

But in fact, are working/living conditions really better in Germany and the Nordic countries? Germany, for example, has strict rules for employment and apprentices often accept poor conditions before full status. It is difficult to change fields and for immigrants to enter such a system. People are largely relegated to the same status as their parents.

BTW, German unions are not allowed to engage in any kind of political advocacy. They cannot contribute to political parties nor can they even advertise or campaign on public issues.

The biggest accomplishment of Unions was to take a crummy job and turn it into a career.

Wonderful quote!

I'll be reminded of it everytime I walk through the turnstiles of Montreal's metro, and look at the "ticket collector" behind the thick glass doing the Mots magiques puzzle.

Doctors and lawyers are unionized. They just don't call them unions. Many scientists are in unions because of the organizations they work for. Same for engineers.

And I suppose the American Association of Anthropologists is also a "union". Argus, I know that you are a diehard unon supporter but you are reaching at straws here. Unions are like a cyclorama, a 19th century relic in a 21st century world.

Your trying to find areas where people do well without unions doesn't detract from the fact that areas where there is a high union membership have generally much better working conditions and benefits than other areas.

Nowadays, you may be right. Unions are now concentrated in the public sector and politicians spend "other people's money". Guess what happens next.

Rob Ford referred to this as the "gravy train". What he didn't mention is that since many people are attracted to the largesse, the queue is longer.

I surmise that the waiting time before obtaining a union job, membership in a union, is long and imposes bad working conditions. IOW, the gravy is wasted. But no doubt, like the military, the union views this as a rite of passage.

Edited December 13, 2012 by August1991

Bryan · December 13, 2012

Youre making an ideological judgement in a vacuum. We know what things were like for workers prior to organization, and freedom is not how most people would describe it. The fact is unions have greatly increased the freedom of workers. Freedom to not be forced to work 70 hours a week. Freedom to not get fired for getting sick. Freedom to not be fired without due cause. Freedom to take weekends off. Freedom to not have to work with asbestos with no respirator/safety equipment.

All non-unionized jobs in this country have those same protections. They are the law of the land. There's nothing about joining or not joining a union today that has any bearing on whether I still have those protections or not.

August1991 · December 13, 2012

These simplifications are repeated constantly, and they ignore what happens when enterprises get very big and assert control and restrict choice.

Tell that to RIM, Eaton's, Kodak, Polaroid or my personal favourite: Woolworth's. (In 1915, the tallest building in the world was the Woolworth Building.)

MH, I suggest that you take a look at the composition of the DJIA over the past 100 years or so. You'd be surprised about "what happens when enterprises get very big and assert control and restrict choice", as you put it.

Yes, if you're naive enough to think that businesses will just give up benefits without any external pressure.
When is the work week going to be reduced again, for example ? The very question sounds ridiculous - why is that ? Because the idea that economic benefits be shared across all levels of society has been made to sound ridiculous today.

You simply don't understand markets.

Markets can drive prices down (the so-called race to the bottom) but they can also drive prices up (as in the typical movie depiction of an auction). More importantly, the "market" exerts an "external pressure".

If you don't believe me, why has opening to trade with China/India suddenly forced the hand of so many North American businesses?

Fletch believes people are treated better and get more benefits if they don't negotiate their contracts collectively.

Cybercoma, do you think the world would have better marriages if women negotiated with men collectively? Edited December 13, 2012 by August1991

Michael Hardner · December 13, 2012

Tell that to RIM, Eaton's, Kodak, Polaroid or my personal favourite: Woolworth's. (In 1915, the tallest building in the world was the Woolworth Building.)

MH, I suggest that you take a look at the composition of the DJIA over the past 100 years or so. You'd be surprised about "what happens when enterprises get very big and assert control and restrict choice", as you put it.

You simply don't understand markets.

How so ? Each of those companies innovated, made money and some of them eventually died. They dominated when they were in their prime. Your point that that nobody created a union to cause innovation is beside the point - these behemoths arrive and dominate, so it's up to the public to ensure that their relationship to society is symbiotic.

Markets can drive prices down (the so-called race to the bottom) but they can also drive prices up (as in the typical movie depiction of an auction). More importantly, the "market" exerts an "external pressure".
If you don't believe me, why has opening to trade with China/India suddenly forced the hand of so many North American businesses?

With such changes, there are economic winners and losers. We always knew that that would happen. The winning/losing happens across the board, but there is generally an overall 'win' for both sides - economically. Over time, though, if there are too many losers then they will make trouble, politically, for the winners.

The winners need to spread around the winnings a little more, or they risk waking up the leftist populism that dominated in North America for 30 to 50 years. From the recent election, it seems to be waking up now.

Boges · December 13, 2012

It gets tiresome hearing a justification for Unions being relevant today because labour laws they helped craft in the past.

Slow Clap.

What have you done for society lately? We see from Michigan yesterday that Unions do more for thuggish mob rule than provide better and more competitive working conditions for its members.

Bryan · December 13, 2012

It gets tiresome hearing a justification for Unions being relevant today because labour laws they helped craft in the past.

Slow Clap.

What have you done for society lately? We see from Michigan yesterday that Unions do more for thuggish mob rule than provide better and more competitive working conditions for its members.

That's not entirely fair, unions do provide higher unemployment. It you're into that sort of thing.

Argus · December 13, 2012

A professional association is not a union. You would do well to research the important differences.

I prefer to examine the important similarities. One, you can't work -- anywhere -- unless you belong and pay your dues. Two, they negotiate with the government for wages and benefits. Three, they threaten work action if they don't get what they want.

Argus · December 13, 2012

Why are you opposed to freedom?

That kind of 'freedom' is like the tax protestors and the people who say government can't order them what to do because they're 'free' people. It's the illusary freedom of the wack job who longs to be Daniel Boone on the frontier in his coonskin cap miles from any other neighbour.

Argus · December 13, 2012

All non-unionized jobs in this country have those same protections. They are the law of the land.

No they don't, and no they aren't.

Argus · December 13, 2012

Argus, I notice that you don't mention conditions in Greece, Spain or Italy.]

Working conditions in those countries is better too if that makes you happy. Better in France, as well, and in Belgium, and in Australia.

But in fact, are working/living conditions really better in Germany and the Nordic countries?

Yes.

Germany, for example, has strict rules for employment and apprentices often accept poor conditions before full status.

In some professions. Doctors and lawyers also face tough apprenticeships here, though we don't call it that.

BTW, German unions are not allowed to engage in any kind of political advocacy. They cannot contribute to political parties nor can they even advertise or campaign on public issues.

I'd be in favour of such a law here, too. But provided business could not do either of those things.

And I suppose the American Association of Anthropologists is also a "union". Argus

If they negotiate salaries, benefits and working conditions, and if you can't work without paying dues and belonging to them, then yeah.

, I know that you are a diehard unon supporter but you are reaching at straws here. Unions are like a cyclorama, a 19th century relic in a 21st century world.

I support unions because I have considerable experience working for companies without any protection for workers -- in this century.

Nowadays, you may be right. Unions are now concentrated in the public sector and politicians spend "other people's money". Guess what happens next.

I was speaking of nations. As I said above, the working conditions for most workers in Europe is far and away better than that of American workers, or Canadians, for that matter. They enjoy far more protection as well.

Argus · December 13, 2012

What have you done for society lately? We see from Michigan yesterday that Unions do more for thuggish mob rule than provide better and more competitive working conditions for its members.

If a sixty second sound byte is the extent of what you see then perhaps you should open your eyes a little wider and look elsewhere.

Boges · December 13, 2012

Spain has 25% unemployment. Who cares if the working conditions are better if only 3/4 of the people actually have work.

Michael Hardner · December 13, 2012

What have you done for society lately? We see from Michigan yesterday that Unions do more for thuggish mob rule than provide better and more competitive working conditions for its members.

They help provide well-paying jobs, in an era where those jobs are going away. That's something. If you want to get rid of them, there will be fewer well-paying jobs, as well as more ways for bad companies to exploit people.

Boges · December 13, 2012

They help provide well-paying jobs, in an era where those jobs are going away. That's something. If you want to get rid of them, there will be fewer well-paying jobs, as well as more ways for bad companies to exploit people.

In the private sector, however, they are becoming irrelevant.When you have a Unionized employee that will grieve being asked to do anything above and beyond their role they will not be able to compete with other, more flexible employees.