Jump to content

Only 60 per cent of Hamilton and GTA workers have secure jobs, report


WIP

Recommended Posts

A report on the local economy here in Hamilton tells the story that's hidden in those blurbs that appear on the nightly news: "No full time work, no benefits, and no job security." is why so many people are struggling to make ends meet even if they are working today, and gaps in income keep growing. The study shows that Hamilton is in the same predicament as most of Canada....and the rest of the world for that matter -- the benefits that have come along in the last 20 years are mostly being kicked up to the top and the middle class continues to shrink. The effects are especially bad for younger people who have come in to the job market in the new era of part time and contract work that is phasing out more and more full time employment.

Here's a look at some of the report's findings:

  • Only 60 per cent of GTA and Hamilton workers today have stable, secure jobs.
  • Barely
    half of those working today are in permanent, full-time positions that
    provide benefits and a degree of employment security.
  • At least 20 per cent of those working are in precarious forms of employment.
  • Another 20 per cent are in employment relationships that share at least some of the characteristics of precarious employment.
  • Precarious employment has increased by nearly 50 per cent in the last 20 years.

For more on the side effects of precarious employment: http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/news/story/2013/02/23/hamilton-precarious-employment-report.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well crap... Now conservatives will convince idiots to advocate that everyone lose the perk of a stable job. "Why should they get that, I don't... THEY SHOULDN'T EITHER" Like they have for all other middle class perks.

Why should tbey get good vacation time?

Why should they get a decent wage?

Why should they get a pension?

Race to the bottom!

Long live corporate interests!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For more on the side effects of precarious employment:

I expect it won't be long before your OP gets a vacuous reply suggesting "no one guaranteed anyone a job"... and I certainly accept that comment, up to a point. That point being where an employer will simply downsize to bring in younger/less skilled replacement workers. Of course, this is all done in the supposed name of "revitalizing" the workplace... and it has nothing to do with paying lower wages/benefits! Right!

call it nothing more than anecdote, but it's something fresh from this weekend. I was updated on the status of a relative, a single mother (widowed) with kids, who will shortly receive her 'walking papers' from a large Canadian corporation, one she has worked proudly for the last 15+ years. Based on her job title/classification, I don't expect she makes a lot of money - but why would that stop a large corporation from giving her, and many of her co-workers, the shaft? What's worse, is they're asking her to stay on a few weeks in order to train her youngish twenty-something replacement. Now, as little as I interpret her to have been paid, I know she (and her kids) had great health/dental benefits. Shortly, she'll be "in the wind", unlikely to find similar employment at the same wage/benefits. Yes, indeed - long live corporate interests!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Company loyalty is as ridiculous an idea as brand loyalty, and everybody should realize that by now. Would you buy Starbucks if it was 10X the price ? It's an economy - nothing else.

As for Waldo's example - they can't simply let a full-time employee go without cause, as far as I know.

Corporations have to compete too, of course, so they can and will find the cheapest labour available. At a certain point, though, the number of well-paying jobs will dwindle to negligible numbers - and governments haven't recognized this fact yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Company loyalty is as ridiculous an idea as brand loyalty, and everybody should realize that by now. Would you buy Starbucks if it was 10X the price ? It's an economy - nothing else.

As for Waldo's example - they can't simply let a full-time employee go without cause, as far as I know.

Corporations have to compete too, of course, so they can and will find the cheapest labour available. At a certain point, though, the number of well-paying jobs will dwindle to negligible numbers - and governments haven't recognized this fact yet.

yes, clearly... employee loyalty to a corporation is long dead. Was a large corporation... ever... truly 'loyal' to its employees? A few recent large companies I've contracted with are a testament to the long lost days of employee loyalty. New hires are typically fresh uni grads - these guys/gals have no thoughts of a longer-term working relationship... it seems building the resume for the next job is most paramount.

as for my example that you reference, companies most certainly can let full-time employees go... the "without cause" aspect is handled quite easily by couching it in terms of "reorganization/downsizing", with a severance pacifier to boot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, clearly... employee loyalty to a corporation is long dead. Was a large corporation... ever... truly 'loyal' to its employees? A few recent large companies I've contracted with are a testament to the long lost days of employee loyalty. New hires are typically fresh uni grads - these guys/gals have no thoughts of a longer-term working relationship... it seems building the resume for the next job is most paramount.

as for my example that you reference, companies most certainly can let full-time employees go... the "without cause" aspect is handled quite easily by couching it in terms of "reorganization/downsizing", with a severance pacifier to boot!

The more you ponder the question about employER loyalty, you end up on that sophomoric question "is there such a thing as altruism". They were, at a point, concerned about their image but no longer. So, yes, people jump from one job to another. My line of work was globalized, and I will be on my 9th job since 2000 soon. Nobody has suggested that I am a "job jumper" and my loyalty compares favourably to others in my line of work.

But... downsizing with another person training to replace you - that's likely something a labour lawyer could sink his/her teeth into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But... downsizing with another person training to replace you - that's likely something a labour lawyer could sink his/her teeth into.

I have seen this done, many times over. An employee is let go - "downsized" in the name of reorganization... and then, the same employee is brought back under contract, many for significant periods of time (even years!). Of course, the end game is to reduce the number of FTEs, no matter how much it costs to contract the individuals. It's certainly a most lucrative job for many - I've seen examples of big-time severance paid out and people being hired back on contract at 3-5 times the wage they had been receiving... of course, they receive no company benefits.

the training someone to replace aspect is one I've only seen with clerical/administration persons - I believe companies get around supposed labour concerns by qualifying the replacement jobs as being somehow "different".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the training someone to replace aspect is one I've only seen with clerical/administration persons - I believe companies get around supposed labour concerns by qualifying the replacement jobs as being somehow "different".

Well, companies are paying now for this approach to labour resourcing. The turnover and training costs are climbing, yet the companies don't appear to be willing to pay to keep staff around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corporations have to compete too, of course, so they can and will find the cheapest labour available. At a certain point, though, the number of well-paying jobs will dwindle to negligible numbers - and governments haven't recognized this fact yet.

Surely they must have recognized what tilting the field towards corporations would do - I can't believe they didn't know what the consequences would be. In any case, ignorance is still no excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect it won't be long before your OP gets a vacuous reply suggesting "no one guaranteed anyone a job"... and I certainly accept that comment, up to a point. That point being where an employer will simply downsize to bring in younger/less skilled replacement workers. Of course, this is all done in the supposed name of "revitalizing" the workplace... and it has nothing to do with paying lower wages/benefits! Right!

call it nothing more than anecdote, but it's something fresh from this weekend. I was updated on the status of a relative, a single mother (widowed) with kids, who will shortly receive her 'walking papers' from a large Canadian corporation, one she has worked proudly for the last 15+ years. Based on her job title/classification, I don't expect she makes a lot of money - but why would that stop a large corporation from giving her, and many of her co-workers, the shaft? What's worse, is they're asking her to stay on a few weeks in order to train her youngish twenty-something replacement. Now, as little as I interpret her to have been paid, I know she (and her kids) had great health/dental benefits. Shortly, she'll be "in the wind", unlikely to find similar employment at the same wage/benefits. Yes, indeed - long live corporate interests!

It's worth mentioning that the reason why no one is guaranteed a decent job today has a lot to do with the dictatorial power that has been placed in the hands of factory and business owners through globalization policies, that allow them to just close up shop and move to the cheapest third or fourth world countries to make cheaper products that are allowed to be sold here.

And here's a story I just heard about recently that illustrates how the executive sees the workers and what they feel they are entitled to. This is from a letter sent to a French Government official by the CEO of Titan International, regarding requests he received to keep a Goodyear factory in France open:

In January, Mr. Montebourg tried to entice Titan back to the negotiating

table, saying he hoped unions would put “some water in their wine, that

managers put some wine in their water, and that Titan would drink the

wine and the water of both” and reach an accord.

But late last month, as union workers protested en masse at the Amiens

site, with a large police presence, Goodyear told workers it would close

the plant and cut its French work force by 39 percent.

In his letter, dated Feb. 8, Mr. Taylor explained his reasons for

refusing to come back to the negotiating table. “Goodyear tried for over

four years to save part of the Amiens jobs that are some of the

highest-paid, but the French unions and the French government did

nothing but talk,” Mr. Taylor wrote.

“Sir, your letter says you want Titan to start a discussion,” he added.

“How stupid do you think we are? Titan is the one with the money and the

talent to produce tires. What does the crazy union have? It has the

French government.”

He said his company would seek to produce cheaper tires in India or

China, where he said Titan would pay the workers less than one euro an

hour, and then sell the tires back to the French. He predicted that

Michelin, the French tiremaker, would not be able to compete with lower

prices and would have to halt production in France within five years.

“You can keep your so-called workers,” he wrote. “Titan is not interested in the Amiens factory.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/business/american-executive-lashes-out-at-french-unions-touching-off-uproar.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely they must have recognized what tilting the field towards corporations would do - I can't believe they didn't know what the consequences would be. In any case, ignorance is still no excuse.

Economic theory states correctly that trade is not a zero-sum game. The net benefit from two countries trading is greater than the losses that both countries occur.

But the idea of pragmatic economic losses in this respect are pretty much never discussed frankly. Instead, we get political posturing from right and left, both of whom will pretend that globalized trade has never happened, or can be turned back.

What they may not have understood, though, is that the overvalued manufacturing and IT jobs could not and would not be replaced with well paying jobs. The entire economy is built around there being a larger middle class, so the question becomes how to get the gains from trade to "trickle down" (I use that term intentionally).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Company loyalty is as ridiculous an idea as brand loyalty, and everybody should realize that by now. Would you buy Starbucks if it was 10X the price ? It's an economy - nothing else.

As for Waldo's example - they can't simply let a full-time employee go without cause, as far as I know.

Depends on the position. If you are unionized, then there are hoops to jump through. Salaried employees can be let go at any time almost for any reason these days. I could be let go tomorrow, in the name of 'streamlining and efficiency to make us more competitive'.

Corporations have to compete too, of course, so they can and will find the cheapest labour available. At a certain point, though, the number of well-paying jobs will dwindle to negligible numbers - and governments haven't recognized this fact yet.

Some of this is contract work, which allows the corporation to avoid paying benefits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WIP. In your example the union worker is greedy. They are already have good wages yet they want more. Same thing happening here. Too many greedy unions who just want more and more forever. For no good reason other than to be greedy. They need to.learn that being employed at a decent wage is better then unemployment.

The question is what is a DECENT wage and what does it take to LIVE and that has so many answers depending on where one lives, one's finanical circumstances and with the ever increases in rent, mortgage, gasoline, nat. gas,hydro, water&sewage, and food, just to name a few, it impossible to live on low wages. Sure there's greedy unions and there also greedy companies and that's why there's unions to protect workers and too bad All workers don't have the same protection from those greedy companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WIP. In your example the union worker is greedy. They are already have good wages yet they want more. Same thing happening here. Too many greedy unions who just want more and more forever. For no good reason other than to be greedy. They need to.learn that being employed at a decent wage is better then unemployment.

We've already talked about the uselessness of applying morality to market wages.

The word 'greedy' is applied when someone you don't agree with wants more. The word 'fair' is used when someone you agree with wants more. And 'the market' is brought in to counter these arguments from time time to time.

The fact is that there is a market, but it's created by humans. We have decided to compete with Asia so wages have fallen in some industries. It has nothing to do with what is fair, but what works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the position. If you are unionized, then there are hoops to jump through. Salaried employees can be let go at any time almost for any reason these days. I could be let go tomorrow, in the name of 'streamlining and efficiency to make us more competitive'.

Some of this is contract work, which allows the corporation to avoid paying benefits.

That's simplistic. There's a market for every job skill. You can't simply "avoid paying benefits" and expect demand for your offer to be the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's simplistic. There's a market for every job skill. You can't simply "avoid paying benefits" and expect demand for your offer to be the same.

I agree everyone has skills and there is a job market for it. But the job will go to the lowest bidder!

With contract work you can easily get away with it. You can hire a 3rd party team and pay them a certain fee. How that 3rd party handles benefits and wages is up to them. I see it all the time. Many of my support teams are contractors, when you are a contractor, you have to take care of your own benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is that there is a market, but it's created by humans. We have decided to compete with Asia so wages have fallen in some industries. It has nothing to do with what is fair, but what works.

Lets not forget the benefits: we get better goods for cheaper than anything Canadian workers could produce on their own because they are coming from companies that have a global scale. This reduces the cost of living which means people need less money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets not forget the benefits: we get better goods for cheaper than anything Canadian workers could produce on their own because they are coming from companies that have a global scale. This reduces the cost of living which means people need less money.

That's all good as long as the global supply chain continues to work. but with this, less companies will be able to compete (already happening) and you have foreign companies buying up resource extraction companies in Canada.

We have less money, things are cheaper, and we don't own anything that is within our borders.

The cost of living has been increasing. I have yet to see it decrease. Some things are cheaper, yes, but the essentials like electricity, fuel, vehicles, taxes, benefits are more expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree everyone has skills and there is a job market for it. But the job will go to the lowest bidder!

With contract work you can easily get away with it. You can hire a 3rd party team and pay them a certain fee. How that 3rd party handles benefits and wages is up to them. I see it all the time. Many of my support teams are contractors, when you are a contractor, you have to take care of your own benefits.

The job will not go to the lower bidder. That would be a ridiculous way to staff. As with any transaction there are many factors involved.

Your second paragraph doesn't address my point. If there are two jobs, posted with the same salary but one has benefits - which job do you think will get more & better applicants ?

There may be specific examples where the job market is so terrible that they can have their pick of the market, but if that's the case then there are other factors involved. How many jobs pay minimum wage with no benefits and what kind of applicants to they get ? What else to they offer for low wages and no benefits ? Experience ? A great environment ? Flexibility ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have less money, things are cheaper, and we don't own anything that is within our borders.

The cost of living has been increasing. I have yet to see it decrease. Some things are cheaper, yes, but the essentials like electricity, fuel, vehicles, taxes, benefits are more expensive.

GH - some of your arguments are arguments against economic orthodoxy. Trade benefits both parties, that's a fact of economics. If you can acknowledge that, then we can proceed to discuss the peculiarities and challenges of our current situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GH - some of your arguments are arguments against economic orthodoxy. Trade benefits both parties, that's a fact of economics. If you can acknowledge that, then we can proceed to discuss the peculiarities and challenges of our current situation.

The recent sell off of some resource companies to China does not allow the fair trade to take place. There is no way Canada can invest in any Chinese company. Manufacturing jobs have been outsources overseas for decades simply because of cheap labour.

The job will not go to the lower bidder. That would be a ridiculous way to staff. As with any transaction there are many factors involved.

Do you know why companies outsource? Cheap labour, lowest bidder.

Your second paragraph doesn't address my point. If there are two jobs, posted with the same salary but one has benefits - which job do you think will get more & better applicants ?

Both jobs will be filled, once the position with benefits is filled, what do you think is left? I have seen it with the company I work for, where one day a person is a company employee, next day he is a contractor making less money and now having to take care of his own benefits. I have seen this happen many times over the 8 years I've been working for this company.

There may be specific examples where the job market is so terrible that they can have their pick of the market, but if that's the case then there are other factors involved.

Of course there are other factors involved.

How many jobs pay minimum wage with no benefits and what kind of applicants to they get ?

Actually in this economy, they are getting lots of applications. Some people will simply take any job they can get in order to get by.

What else to they offer for low wages and no benefits ? Experience ? A great environment ? Flexibility ?

Not really sure here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...