Why are people so hostile to unions?

[MadX]

I'm sure that is EXACTLY what it is like at big bad companies that are non union like, Toyota Canada, Honda Canada, Blackberry, etc.etc. Those poor people.

I was at the Blackberry Christmas party at the ACC where Tragically Hip Opened for Van-Halen.... It was attrocious

So you named three companies that treat their workers well, how many are there out there that don't. Maybe they let their workers see the Hip and Van Halen but do they pay their workers as well as those in unionized positions in the same occupations.

Edited May 2, 2013 by MadX

[MadX]

Small business taxes are already 0 in some provinces, so I don't know how much room there is to move there. BC just raised it's min wage from $8 to $10.25 over a year, and I see many fine small businesses doing just fine. If a small business can only survive by paying starvation wages, it should not be in business in the first place. Otherwise, why not just have no min wage law, and open the border to anybody that wants to come here and work for $5 an hour say. Business would be booming by that theory, Canada not so much.

I don't think small businesses have zero taxes in the Atlantic provinces but I wouldn't know because I don't own a small business.

[TimG]

The owners wages would be the businesses' profits, its the same thing. Who would disagree with higher wages for workers and lower taxes for small business. It's a win win situation.

You don't read very well do you? I said small businesses don't pay taxes and will therefore get zero benefit from tax reductions. It is a lose lose scenario. Employees lose because there are fewer jobs. Businesses lose because they make less money. Edited May 2, 2013 by TimG

[Canuckistani]

Min wage should be set to the LICO for a single person in the area. That means people would have a modest but sufficient income that rises with inflation.

Australia has a min wage of $16. They're booming.

[TimG]

Min wage should be set to the LICO for a single person in the area. That means people would have a modest but sufficient income that rises with inflation.

Nonsense. LICO is a relative measure.

Increase wages and the LICO goes up which requires wages to go up - an endless self defeating spiral.

The best way to illustrate why the voodoo economics of the 'higher minimum wages benefit the economy' crowds is to take the extreme: what would happen if we made the minimum wage $100/hour? If you agree that $100/hour minimum wage would have negative effects that outweigh the benefits then you must also agree that every incremental increase in minimum wage has negative effects. The only difference is a question of magnitude.

Edited May 2, 2013 by TimG

[Guest Kenneth]

That makes a lot of sense. I think that rather than being envious people should demand the same wages. I also believe that government should increase minimum wage to a living wage to reduce poverty. I'm not against tax cuts to business but only if they are conditional tax cuts that lead to more jobs and higher wages. I'm pro-union as well, some peoples arguments against them make sense in certain situations but I still feel corporations are worse. I work in a non-unionized environment, wages are a dollar above minimum wage and people are bullied, especially if they are young, female, physically small, non-assertive, or are a minority. I think even a bad union would be better than that.

There was a considerable discussion locally about raising the minimum wage to $10 - the proponents insisted that it needed to be raised to this amount, yet I now see these same people claiming that it needs to be raised even higher now. Constantly raising the minimum wage doesn't end poverty, I'm afraid that there never will be an end to poverty ever and it's a Socialist pipe-dream that there can be.

Many Unions are run by Marxists. They have no real understanding of economics and they consider the real purpose of their unions is to engage in class warfare with the "elites". They're no so much about getting a fair wage and safe working environment for the workers, as they are about sucking corporations dry and trying to put an end to capitalism.

[PIK]

Are the big box stores your competition? Or what type of business was it?

25 employees - guess it was a larger small business. Paid well above minimum wage.

Edited May 2, 2013 by PIK

[Canuckistani]

Are the big box stores your competition? Or what type of business was it?

No. Not a store. How does raising the min wage tilt the field towards the big box stores?

[Canuckistani]

Nonsense. LICO is a relative measure.

Increase wages and the LICO goes up which requires wages to go up - an endless self defeating spiral.

The best way to illustrate why the voodoo economics of the 'higher minimum wages benefit the economy' crowds is to take the extreme: what would happen if we made the minimum wage $100/hour? If you agree that $100/hour minimum wage would have negative effects that outweigh the benefits then you must also agree that every incremental increase in minimum wage has negative effects. The only difference is a question of magnitude.

Are you claiming a rise in the min wage is in 100% correlation to the rise in the LICO? Give your head a shake. Low end wages are a very small part of LICO. And yes, low end wages would rise with inflation, ie LICO, under this scheme.

And you seem to be saying that reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument with your second paragraph. It's not.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Canuckistani

[TimG]

Are you claiming a rise in the min wage is in 100% correlation to the rise in the LICO?

Why wouldn't it? The LICO is relative to the average family spending. An increase in the minimum wage increases the costs of the average family which increases the LICO. You are living in a fantasy land if you think that government can wave a magic wand and mandate higher wages with no negative consequences.

Please explain why you don't support raising minimum wages to 100/hour?

Based on the arguments you present there is no reason not to.

So explain why you think it is absurd.

And then explain how you decide what level of minimum wage is acceptable.

Edited May 2, 2013 by TimG

[Canuckistani]

The LICO is based on the cost of living - ie food, housing, etc.

The approach is essentially to estimate an income threshold at which families are expected to spend 20 percentage points more than the average family on food, shelter and clothing

Seems a reasonable standard to set for min wage. In Vancouver it's under $12 for a single person. Current min wage is $10. 25. So not a huge increase, but certainly welcome by min wage workers, and it would keep rising with inflation, as it should.

As I say, Australia seems to do very well with a $16 min wage. Seems a bit high to me, but it works for them.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Canuckistani

[TimG]

Seems a reasonable standard to set for min wage.

It is a silly measure because increases in minimum wages cause LICO to rise which creates an endless self defeating spiral.

What is the LICO for australia? I suspect it is slightly above their minimum wage because of this correlation.

[Michael Hardner]

The government likes to declare war, but President Johnson of the US declared war on poverty in 1964 - and it worked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

[Canuckistani]

It is a silly measure because increases in minimum wages cause LICO to rise which creates an endless self defeating spiral.

What is the LICO for australia? I suspect it is slightly above their minimum wage because of this correlation.

BS. LICO is determined by the line where people spend 20% more on basics than the average person/family. The average is nowhere near minimum wage. Min wages would be a very small part of cost of living, so raising the min wage would not raise LICO. I mean you seem to be claiming that when BC raised the min wage by $2.25 over the course of a year, the LICO in Vancouver should have shot up an equal amount. It did not.

[PIK]

They have the money to do it, where the little guy struggles to make ends meet. Small town canada is not like the city.

No. Not a store. How does raising the min wage tilt the field towards the big box stores?

[Canuckistani]

They have the money to do it, where the little guy struggles to make ends meet. Small town canada is not like the city.

Small town Canada is not going to attract big box stores because the volume isn't there. If a big box decides the volume is there to put one up, the mom and pops are gone, no matter what wages they pay.

[Boges]

I love how debates about Unions always boil down to the minimum wage and retail jobs. It's a scare tactic.

When one questions unions people just say that everyone will be like Walmart workers if not for unions.

As if entry level retail work is too good for people. From what I gather, you can be quite upwardly mobile in retail jobs. People can make very good money if they stick with a company for awhile and do a real good job. But everyone always looks at the wages for new workers.

Many also don't make the minimum wage but as it goes up I reckon more will as people's salaries aren't necessarily linked to the minimum wage. What will that do to the standard of living of the masses?

Edited May 2, 2013 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

I love how debates about Unions always boil down to the minimum wage and retail jobs. It's a scare tactic.

When one questions unions people just say that everyone will be like Walmart workers if not for unions.

As if entry level retail work is too good for people. From what I gather, you can be quite upwardly mobile in retail jobs. People can make very good money if they stick with a company for awhile and do a real good job. But everyone always looks at the wages for new workers.

Many also don't make the minimum wage but as it goes up I reckon more will as people's salaries aren't necessarily linked to the minimum wage. What will that do to the standard of living of the masses?

But the economy can't really support itself when people make that little. It's a paradox, from what I can tell. You want productivity, meaning lower wages, so you can be competitive in the global market but you also want high paying jobs so that tax revenues can provide for health, education and infrastructure.

[WWWTT]

I'm sure that is EXACTLY what it is like at big bad companies that are non union like, Toyota Canada, Honda Canada, Blackberry, etc.etc. Those poor people.

I was at the Blackberry Christmas party at the ACC where Tragically Hip Opened for Van-Halen.... It was attrocious

Ya actually the picture I posted is about right to work legislation similar to what Tim Hudak is proposing.

Hold that thought if it ever comes to Ontario!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

I'm sure that is EXACTLY what it is like at big bad companies that are non union like, Toyota Canada, Honda Canada, Blackberry, etc.etc. Those poor people.

I was at the Blackberry Christmas party at the ACC where Tragically Hip Opened for Van-Halen.... It was attrocious

Oh ya I forgot to ask,you have a link about the wages earned at the places you mention.Because a Hip concert doesn't go far when paying the mortgage down.

Also,you are aware that industry in Canada has to pay higher wages to compete with the union sectors aren't you?

WWWTT

Edited May 3, 2013 by WWWTT

[Spiderfish]

But the economy can't really support itself when people make that little. It's a paradox, from what I can tell. You want productivity, meaning lower wages, so you can be competitive in the global market but you also want high paying jobs so that tax revenues can provide for health, education and infrastructure.

Productivity does not necessarily mean lower wages. Productivity comes from efficiency, which is achived by hiring skilled labour, which comes at a premium.

Not all private sector companies are trying to compete on a global scale. There are thousands of private sector companies who are looking for talent to compete in the local market.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Spiderfish

[Bryan]

There seems to be a misconception that a business being unionized automatically means higher wages. That is not a given either.

I mentioned earlier that I have worked for several unionized companies. At one of those, the company was unionized while I was working there. The union (a very big one with over 200,000 members) was giving us all the same lines you always hear unions give about how they can bring us hyperbolic increases in wages, benefits, and job conditions. At the time, I should have realized that the company could never afford such things, but I was a young, naive liberal who believed the ideals the unions was selling.

The end result was some serious fiscal slight of hand by the union. One one side, they were able to truthfully say that the hourly wage did increase (albeit far less than the amount they PROMISED to get us to sign on). The part they didn't want to talk about though was how the rest of our compensation package (uniform allowances, shift premiums, etc) went down, AND we now had to pay union dues. The bottom line was our take-home pay went down, not up.

[Pliny]

Here is a good example of Union chicanery to fill its pockets.

http://www.m-f-d.org/article/general/0v424a5vxje.php

[Pliny]

The government likes to declare war, but President Johnson of the US declared war on poverty in 1964 - and it worked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

It worked? After spending 15 trillion over the fifty years the poverty rate remains almost the same as when the war started.

[WWWTT]

Here is a good example of Union chicanery to fill its pockets.

http://www.m-f-d.org/article/general/0v424a5vxje.php

Good example of 11 year old unbacked data!

WWWTT