Why are people so hostile to unions?

[Argus]

Not for long if the current government gets its way.

I'll just simply disagree, that the sick day benefit is good for a workplace. I think employers can find much more pragmatic solutions to deal with issues of health and time off due to sickness or injury.

And employees who have a high level of skill and education will find a more pleasant workplace to use their skills and talents rather than spending their lives in a miserably depressing workplace working for employers who despise them and offer no perks and only the most basic of benefits.

But I'm sure having to settle for those who can't find anything else will give us a real improvement in the quality of the work being done.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

?

Why wouldn't they have oversight ? They should start new organizations, basically, do to the same tasks in parallel - with better management structures and more flexible and competitive salary too.

Anything they start will require forty seven levels of oversight to change a light bulb. There will be lots of rules and processes in place to make sure it's not changed prematurely, and that all the directors and commissioners sign off on this light bulb changing business, and only after plenty of studies, reports and meetings. That's how government operates now. They are not going to start a parallel system whereby lower level managers are given any sort of power without micromanaging from above. Micromanagement is now the culture of public service executives and managers. Nothing gets done without lots and lots and lots of reports and documentation. And if that doubles or triples the cost of the actual task which needs doing, well, so what? I assure you no one in the higher levels of the public service even gives that a second thought.

[Argus]

(Now, there are activities that would be considered 'illegal'... forced unpaid overtime, etc. But, such activities are protected by legal mechanisms; no union is needed.)

That's right. You can complain to the labour board, and a year or two after you're fired, they'll tell the company in question not to do that. And the company will solemnly say okay, and then continue to do it to the guy who replaced you.

[guyser]

Is it true that workers also have , on top of sick days, 14 or 11 days for dealing with sick children?

[Jeff M]

People that don't belong to unions hate unions. It's simply a matter of them begrudging union members the high wages they are able to make through being a union member. Nothing more complicated than that.

As as for owners of companies, they all hate unions because they are forced to pay a reasonable wage when they are unionized.

Pretty simple question of human nature really.

[ReeferMadness]

People that don't belong to unions hate unions. It's simply a matter of them begrudging union members the high wages they are able to make through being a union member. Nothing more complicated than that.

As as for owners of companies, they all hate unions because they are forced to pay a reasonable wage when they are unionized.

Pretty simple question of human nature really.

There is some truth to your statement but this is a gross simplification.

It certainly is true that in many cases, unions are able to command higher wages, at least in the short term. And it is true that this sparks envy in people who don't enjoy the same benefits or protections of the union. And it is also true that this envy is stoked by right wingers who simply want unions to go away.

However, most people who spend any significant amount of time in a unionized environment will agree that there are people who deserve to be fired but won't be due to the union. And union rules are often obstacles to productivity (and sometimes harmonious workplace environments). And I have personally known lots of union members who question the wages of other groups of union members.

I understand that a big reason behind the increase in inequality over the years is directly due to the low rate of unionization. However, I also recognize that unions are often their own worst enemies. They are bureaucratic and often dominated by idealogues who romanticize striking and advocate class warfare.

[Michael Hardner]

They are not going to start a parallel system whereby lower level managers are given any sort of power without micromanaging from above. Micromanagement is now the culture of public service executives and managers. Nothing gets done without lots and lots and lots of reports and documentation. And if that doubles or triples the cost of the actual task which needs doing, well, so what? I assure you no one in the higher levels of the public service even gives that a second thought.

I would hope that somebody at the tippy top of the govt. pyramid would see the folly in this approach and see the value of peeling off the layers of regulation on all sides.

[Pliny]

People that don't belong to unions hate unions. It's simply a matter of them begrudging union members the high wages they are able to make through being a union member. Nothing more complicated than that.

As as for owners of companies, they all hate unions because they are forced to pay a reasonable wage when they are unionized.

Pretty simple question of human nature really.

Yep. Very simple. But aren't there people that don't belong to unions that like Unions and wish they were members of a Union? They don't seem to be in much demand these days.

Couldn't one also say, in all simplicity, that the poor don't like the rich because it is a simple matter of them begrudging them the amount of wealth some of them have.

That explains it all so simply. I like simple.

[Argus]

I would hope that somebody at the tippy top of the govt. pyramid would see the folly in this approach and see the value of peeling off the layers of regulation on all sides.

You can hope all you want but there is no realistic expectation of that happening. Those at the top are the ones who want all this 'oversight', who want all these complex policies, regardless of how wasteful they are.

A person I know who is a manager spent most of their day Friday doing references for two employees whose jobs were declared surplus. Now you might think that a simple letter of recommendation would do, but not in the government. HR has designed an 8 page form with multiple queries, each of which has five or six 'bullet points'. Each of those bullet points has to be addressed with examples of how and when the employee performed or demonstrated this or that capability or task.

Time well spent? Hardly. But those are the processes in place.

BTW, we are busily taking about huge computer systems and moving thousands and thousands of people across the river into Quebec at a cost of millions of dollars. Why? SO that the government can fulfill a pledge to Quebec that 30% of government jobs are located there. So even though they are in perfectly satisfactory buildings the government will spend millions moving them across the river for political reasons. Anyone whining about that?

[Michael Hardner]

You can hope all you want but there is no realistic expectation of that happening. Those at the top are the ones who want all this 'oversight',

You aren't looking at root causes. They don't want oversight - they want lower costs and this isn't how they will achieve that goal in the long term.

[MadX]

People that don't belong to unions hate unions. It's simply a matter of them begrudging union members the high wages they are able to make through being a union member. Nothing more complicated than that.

As as for owners of companies, they all hate unions because they are forced to pay a reasonable wage when they are unionized.

Pretty simple question of human nature really.

Jeff I think you hit the nail right on the head. I'm not like that though, I'm not in a union at my job, none of us are but I'm not bitter and hateful at people who are in unions. I do envy them a bit, I would like higher wages and better working conditions but I'm still young and don't plan being with this company for too much longer. I guess if I was 40 or 50 and stuck in a dead end job I might feel differently. I think instead of being jealous of those better off though, people should fight for better working conditions where they are and organize for better wages and benefits. I wonder if you got banned for speaking the truth?

[Argus]

You aren't looking at root causes. They don't want oversight - they want lower costs and this isn't how they will achieve that goal in the long term.

No, you're mistaken. The primary goal of politicians as well as senior bureaucrats is ALWAYS their own well-being. If something goes wrong, they catch heat for it. They don't want heat. And they don't much care what needs to be done to protect them from blame for things that go wrong. So the politicians demand huge oversight from the senior executives. They, in turn, not wanting to be blamed for anything, put in place tons of rules, restrictions, policies and procedures so they can micromanage everything that goes on below them. This cascades down and results in huge inefficiencies.

Most of it can be put down to the fact that none of the people in charge trust the people immediately below them to do their job properly. NONE of them. This is why before we can make any changes to our external web site, for example, the assistant deputy minister's office must approve them. What does that mean? It means that even minor changes require reports and documentation for approval by ones manager, then director (in consultation with public affairs), then director general before being forwarded to the ADM's office for their approval. This sort of thing is absolutely routine everywhere in government.

[Michael Hardner]

No, you're mistaken. The primary goal of politicians as well as senior bureaucrats is ALWAYS their own well-being. If something goes wrong, they catch heat for it. They don't want heat. And they don't much care what needs to be done to protect them from blame for things that go wrong. So the politicians demand huge oversight from the senior executives. They, in turn, not wanting to be blamed for anything, put in place tons of rules, restrictions, policies and procedures so they can micromanage everything that goes on below them. This cascades down and results in huge inefficiencies.

But you indicated that this changed. Why did it change ? I think it's because they're trying to reign in costs.

Most of it can be put down to the fact that none of the people in charge trust the people immediately below them to do their job properly. NONE of them. This is why before we can make any changes to our external web site, for example, the assistant deputy minister's office must approve them. What does that mean? It means that even minor changes require reports and documentation for approval by ones manager, then director (in consultation with public affairs), then director general before being forwarded to the ADM's office for their approval. This sort of thing is absolutely routine everywhere in government.

That's so ridiculous. Politicians are so inept at business, my God...

[Argus]

But you indicated that this changed. Why did it change ? I think it's because they're trying to reign in costs.

That's so ridiculous. Politicians are so inept at business, my God...

What I indicated is that over the last dozen years things had changed -- for the worse, with much more documentation required, more levels of approval, more centralization of power at the top. It changed post Chretien because the Tories blamed the bureaucrats for allowing Chretien's adscam games even though it was clear those involved were breaking all kinds of existing rules but being protected by their political masters. No new rules were required, but we got the Accountability Act anyway.

[Michael Hardner]

What I indicated is that over the last dozen years things had changed -- for the worse, with much more documentation required, more levels of approval, more centralization of power at the top. It changed post Chretien because the Tories blamed the bureaucrats for allowing Chretien's adscam games even though it was clear those involved were breaking all kinds of existing rules but being protected by their political masters. No new rules were required, but we got the Accountability Act anyway.

Ok, I see. So it's even worse than I suspected. We need to take these services farther away from the reach of political mismanagers.

[DFCaper]

I feel that unions are needed still, but not in today's format in Canada.

Unfortunately I think we don't have private sector unions that are what the times require. I have watched the CAW destroy so many jobs. I personally tried to bring jobs to my area, just to have them blocked by the CAW. I seen it with other facilities closing in the area. Is there an area that the CAW is strong that isn't losing jobs? I was a member in one of my devious jobs, till we decertified. The union had it's own agenda and was not allowing the workers the relationship with management the workers wanted. That place is still open... I only have direct experience with the CAW and the UAW, so cannot comment on the others. Working with the UAW was like a breath of fresh air in comparison. The were far more willing to work with management. You know the CAW is stuck in the past since they always bring up events at least 30 years ago.

With the public sector unions, Sid Ryan is the poster child for what's the issue I have with them. That and McGuinty-Whinne Liberal government in Ontario. They are way too politically active. Should be illegal. Wages at the municipal level are out of control, but that seems to be more of the arbitration system issue.

Unfortunately, the only fixes are right to work that is being presented. Don't think that will fix anything, but can't make things worse.

How can we modernize the Labour movement so it is similar to those in Germany or japan????

[MadX]

Unions are not needed to deal with these issues. Most companies have HR departments that allow complaints to be made. And if complaints are not heard people can quit. In fact, if some cases they would have grounds for a lawsuit (i.e. the laws protect people - no need for a union).

you must be blind to the facts of life. Most HR departments are there to back managers and not the workers. Only if something very serious happened, like sexual harassment, are the managers held accountable (and even then not all the time). Also lawsuits are expensive and can usually only be launched by those with a lot of money.

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe it's time for a new solution...

[Michael Hardner]

Specifically, we have technology now to create spaces where information can be openly exchanged and displayed. How about, instead of installing an organization with heavy processes to police workers' rights or having the company pay an HR company to ensure a basic minimum, we create an open exchange where people can assess companies based on their records.

That is, we could have an audited summary of the numbers and types of complaints and results, along with a forum for companies and individuals to discuss. Of course, you couldn't discuss details of the case, but you could discuss numbers, types of complaints, plus anything that went to provincial investigation.

[MadX]

Specifically, we have technology now to create spaces where information can be openly exchanged and displayed. How about, instead of installing an organization with heavy processes to police workers' rights or having the company pay an HR company to ensure a basic minimum, we create an open exchange where people can assess companies based on their records.

That is, we could have an audited summary of the numbers and types of complaints and results, along with a forum for companies and individuals to discuss. Of course, you couldn't discuss details of the case, but you could discuss numbers, types of complaints, plus anything that went to provincial investigation.

That doesn't sound like a bad idea actually

[Michael Hardner]

I would start by having a pilot project with large companies offering their HR organizations to take part, I would invite representatives from labour, and government to facilitate the discussion. I would ensure that we had people at the table looking for solutions, not to further their personal goals.

I would have these parties meet to discuss what could be done in the short term to improve things, then I would have them design the project out of the public eye. Once designed, the project could be announced with all stakeholders present, and the results as well.

I would also invite input from all political parties, with the goal of that being to ensure that when a transfer of power takes place, the program has enough buy-in to continue beyond the next election.

[MadX]

I would start by having a pilot project with large companies offering their HR organizations to take part, I would invite representatives from labour, and government to facilitate the discussion. I would ensure that we had people at the table looking for solutions, not to further their personal goals.

I would have these parties meet to discuss what could be done in the short term to improve things, then I would have them design the project out of the public eye. Once designed, the project could be announced with all stakeholders present, and the results as well.

I would also invite input from all political parties, with the goal of that being to ensure that when a transfer of power takes place, the program has enough buy-in to continue beyond the next election.

It's a good idea but I don't think too many companies would sign on to something like this. Transparency isn't usually a priority for either business or government.

[Michael Hardner]

It's a good idea but I don't think too many companies would sign on to something like this. Transparency isn't usually a priority for either business or government.

It's a new world, though. People demand open information. Do you think that large hotel chains would prefer to be on open rating systems like Travelocity ? Of course not. But if they're not there, then it's worse than getting 2 stars...

Big companies care about how they're perceived, plus for the most part they are all similar in HR matters and likely don't have a lot to worry about.

[MadX]

A lot of companies have a monopoly on the local job market, at least they do in my area where jobs are hard to come by, and thus don't care how others perceive them. Many of their employees have to work there because they have no where else to go.

[Michael Hardner]

A lot of companies have a monopoly on the local job market, at least they do in my area where jobs are hard to come by, and thus don't care how others perceive them. Many of their employees have to work there because they have no where else to go.

Smaller companies perhaps. There's also something called CSR - corporate social responsibility.

Of course, if these companies are just pure evil then let's just burn down their building and lynch the CEOs. Or we could try to engage with these organizations...