Why are people so hostile to unions?

[Michael Hardner]

The more they know that you need the job, the worse they tend to treat you. It's like some sort of a power game, I think many of these managers may have been abused as children, either by their parents, their classmates, or both. They have deep seated issues. Not all of them are bad but at this job you are pretty much at the whims of your supervisor. There is no union so there is no worker protection. I'd get another job if I could but EI is hard to get, there isn't many jobs in my area, and I don't want to have to bum money from my parents, its bad enough I still live at home. Still its easier for me to leave than many co-workers. So you state that union shops deprive people of their liberty. I can tell you nonunion workplaces do the same and then some.

So - the question is: what are the ways to treat abusive behavior by managers ? One way is by organizing a response, ie. organizing the workers. Another way is go to ownership and point out that this is happening, and ask for a response.

I would at least attempt the latter way first, as abusive organizations tend to fail as well they should.

The other thing to point out is that organization is no guarantee of an abuse-free workplace.

My experience suggests that the value of the job versus the marketplace is a better indicator for how poorly you're treated than whether it's organized or not.

[MadX]

I think all workplaces should be free of abuse whether unionized or not. This is an issue that transcends politics. However, I have friends who are older than I that work in unionized jobs and while they are not perfect, there tends not to be as much abuse as in the place that I work. Organizing against this type of abuse would likely be difficult as the abuse is psychological rather than physical or sexual so it would be harder to prove. Also most people are too scared to stand up for themselves. We live in an economically deprived area and most people are desperate to cling to their jobs now matter how poorly they are treated. Even though I'm not subject to most of these silly games, I still see co-workers being harrassed (not sexually but psychologically) by superiors and other co-workers. Sometimes I'll speak up if I see someone being treated obviously unfairly but typically I mind my own business and don't get involved in the affairs of others.

[MadX]

So - the question is: what are the ways to treat abusive behavior by managers ? One way is by organizing a response, ie. organizing the workers. Another way is go to ownership and point out that this is happening, and ask for a response.

I would at least attempt the latter way first, as abusive organizations tend to fail as well they should.

The other thing to point out is that organization is no guarantee of an abuse-free workplace.

My experience suggests that the value of the job versus the marketplace is a better indicator for how poorly you're treated than whether it's organized or not.

Going the managers' bosses typically doesn't yield any results. The bosses' bosses typically justify abusive behaviour and covertly condone it.

[Michael Hardner]

I think all workplaces should be free of abuse whether unionized or not. This is an issue that transcends politics. However, I have friends who are older than I that work in unionized jobs and while they are not perfect, there tends not to be as much abuse as in the place that I work.

I get that. The question I have is whether organization is necessary in every situation, or in response to management practices would be necessary.

We live in an economically deprived area and most people are desperate to cling to their jobs now matter how poorly they are treated. Even though I'm not subject to most of these silly games, I still see co-workers being harrassed (not sexually but psychologically) by superiors and other co-workers.

If you work against bad behavior then you're helping the situation for the abusers. Sometimes speaking up isn't the best approach, but whistle blowing or talking to people behind the scenes is.

[Michael Hardner]

Going the managers' bosses typically doesn't yield any results. The bosses' bosses typically justify abusive behaviour and covertly condone it.

If you've tried the positive route, you are indeed in a bad spot. My experience is that no good manager tolerates abuse or negative behavior in the workplace.

There are other ways to achieve a better workplace:

- Take the high road and continue to complain, but in a positive way. Appeal to their humanity - they know in their hearts that you're right even if they don't acknowledge it. Eventually, something may happen.

- Complain to clients, to other employees, to Ministry of Labour as positively as you can - but secretly.

- Organize the workers

- Talk to senior workers who have the attention of management

Document cases, with dates and details in all cases while you're doing all of this. The world isn't fair, but it's our job to make it more fair.

[MadX]

If you've tried the positive route, you are indeed in a bad spot. My experience is that no good manager tolerates abuse or negative behavior in the workplace.

There are other ways to achieve a better workplace:

- Take the high road and continue to complain, but in a positive way. Appeal to their humanity - they know in their hearts that you're right even if they don't acknowledge it. Eventually, something may happen.

- Complain to clients, to other employees, to Ministry of Labour as positively as you can - but secretly.

- Organize the workers

- Talk to senior workers who have the attention of management

Document cases, with dates and details in all cases while you're doing all of this. The world isn't fair, but it's our job to make it more fair.

You can't appeal to the humanity of psychopaths, you give good advice but you assume that we are dealing with normal people.

[Michael Hardner]

You can't appeal to the humanity of psychopaths, you give good advice but you assume that we are dealing with normal people.

A true psychopath is not employable and no reasonable business owner would get one to manage a business. It's an exceedingly negative view to think that such things are inevitable, just as it is exceedingly naive to think that bad managers don't exist.

[margrace]

Well unions do have their place In the fight to get pay equity in our workplace I was told at one point by the gov't office handling this that we would be better off it we were unionized. We were working at little over the minimum wage and constantly being told that women had no right to ask for more money.The main belief that women shouldn't be working and that they should be happy living in poor trailer with their children because they get what they deserve for not obeying the men more.

[Argus]

So - the question is: what are the ways to treat abusive behavior by managers ? One way is by organizing a response, ie. organizing the workers. Another way is go to ownership and point out that this is happening, and ask for a response.

I would at least attempt the latter way first, as abusive organizations tend to fail as well they should.

The other thing to point out is that organization is no guarantee of an abuse-free workplace.

Every time our contract comes up for negotiation, my union attempts to get general harassment put into the contract, as in prohibiting it. Our employer has consistently refused. Now harassment is in the contract insofar as prohibited grounds are concerned. I.e, management cannot harass an employee because that employee is Jewish or Black or female or gay, for instance.

However, management has consistently refused to include any other type of harassment/abuse from being written into the contract as prohibited. If a manager abuses or harasses you simply because he or she doesn't like you, or is a bad manager, well, tough luck there Joe. The position of the Canada Revenue Agency has been that banning harassment on other grounds would impede their managers in their supervisory roles. There are a lot of employers who, despite all evidence of its poor overall effect, despite it being disdained in business schools, still feel a sense of admiration for 'kickass' managers. As you can imagine, the Harper government most definitely admires that styles of management.

[Michael Hardner]

However, management has consistently refused to include any other type of harassment/abuse from being written into the contract as prohibited. If a manager abuses or harasses you simply because he or she doesn't like you, or is a bad manager, well, tough luck there Joe.

Interesting. Having that as part of a clause in a contract is different than having it in an open labour relationship.

...still feel a sense of admiration for 'kickass' managers. As you can imagine, the Harper government most definitely admires that styles of management.

This, to me, typifies the parent/child relationship of managers and workers. It's archaic and perpetuated by the self-appointed "grown ups" on all sides. That means that managers don't trust workers to actually do work, and workers don't trust managers to manage. How can such an organization continue to exist in this day and age, I don't know.

I would hate to be on either side of that relationship.

[Guest Peeves]

No government public workers should ever have a union regardless what they call it.

The reason is simple.

Private industry has competition, a product that must be produced competitavely and must make a profit to remain viable.

Civic employees have no such requirements.

When a union represents government employees they are not facing a management dependant on anything but votes.

They can 'give' any perk or payment, benefit or insurance, pension or sick days, and have when black mailed.

Because the management (read politicians) negotiating simply pass the costs to we tax payers while in private business a contract has to be reasonable or both parties lose and the industry closes. The public is not effected except by less competition in the market.

[Argus]

No government public workers should ever have a union regardless what they call it.

The reason is simple.

Yes, I figured it would be. After all, the statement was pretty simplistic.

Private industry has competition, a product that must be produced competitavely and must make a profit to remain viable.

Civic employees have no such requirements.

That's not a reason, that's a non sequitor, irrelevant to the opening statement.

When a union represents government employees they are not facing a management dependant on anything but votes.

They can 'give' any perk or payment, benefit or insurance, pension or sick days, and have when black mailed.

So public servants shouldn't get unions because governments are gutless morons? I'm sorry, but should the public be voting for gutless morons? And if the public chooses to vote in gutless morons should the public not have to suffer the consequences?

Because the management (read politicians) negotiating simply pass the costs to we tax payers while in private business a contract has to be reasonable or both parties lose and the industry closes. The public is not effected except by less competition in the market.

So government can't be trusted to negotiate with unions. But it CAN be trusted to negotiate enormously expensive contracts with private business because... well, everyone knows private business would never try to get the better of the government and negotiate themselves sweet deals.

Look, you vote in a government to manager the affairs of the nation. If you're saying they can't even be trusted to manage their own employees then just put a giant computer in charge.

Then again, maybe you, and by "you" I mean the public, might not vote in place gutless governments which only care about their own popularity, huh? Or is that too much to ask of you?

[Peter F]

Because the management (read politicians) negotiating simply pass the costs to we tax payers while in private business a contract has to be reasonable or both parties lose and the industry closes.

Business never passes rising costs onto consumers? Seriously?

And government never tries to reduce costs? Seriously?

Edited June 10, 2013 by Peter F

[Pliny]

So government can't be trusted to negotiate with unions. But it CAN be trusted to negotiate enormously expensive contracts with private business because... well, everyone knows private business would never try to get the better of the government and negotiate themselves sweet deals.

It is difficult to deal with monopolistic services that are withdrawn where the public is held to ransom.

A private sector union can withdraw it's services but there is usually a price to pay such as loss of market share so withdrawing services better be short. They can also measure the limit of their demands themselves as they have some idea of what the market will bear. If they don't have a clue about that bye-bye company and bye-bye job.

Who knows if the government in negotiations with Unions is giving away the farm. There are no market penalties to be paid. There is only grumbling from the public when taxes need to be raised or new tax revenues are sought.

Look, you vote in a government to manager the affairs of the nation. If you're saying they can't even be trusted to manage their own employees then just put a giant computer in charge.

Let me reiterate my previous statement. Who can gauge what the value of the service is? Public employees that dislike the ruling party because they deny them the wages and benefits they demand isn't going to be supported too heartily, either in the work place or at the voting booth. Any policy that appears to weaken the Union numbers, power or position is grounds for a Union swell of support for the Opposition in the next election. You call that being gutless though.

The public union can no longer point to the private sector and say we need to get equal pay and benefits for equal work.

They are now leading in wages and benefits in most areas - one exception being in upper management.

Next thing you know, government is the best employer in the nation, the best benefits and entitlements and the private sector is paying for it all plus their own employees.

Then again, maybe you, and by "you" I mean the public, might not vote in place gutless governments which only care about their own popularity, huh? Or is that too much to ask of you?

You call them gutless. They need to keep you content, Argus but it is impossible to measure the cost-benefit ratio except in terms of that employee contentment and perhaps public inconvenience resulting from public service disruptions.

The best answers are the simple ones.

[Argus]

It is difficult to deal with monopolistic services that are withdrawn where the public is held to ransom.

Not sure where you're writing in from, but here in Canada government LIKES monopolistic services. That's why we have so little competition in the private sector. Government regulations ensure we only have a half dozen banks, three telecom companies, three cable companies, three phone companies, etc. etc. And so we pay the highest, or among the highest rates in the world for everything. We generally have one electricity company which charges us whatever it feels like, and even when we have more private sector companies, ie, gas stations, they all pretty much charge exactly the same anyway. We have a bunch of retail outlets, even Target's coming to Canada. Of course, they're still going to charge us a lot more than they do in the US because, well, they can.

A private sector union can withdraw it's services but there is usually a price to pay such as loss of market share so withdrawing services better be short.

I can think of any number of private sector strikes which went on for months, even years. No public service strike ever lasts long because the employer in this case can simply order their employees back to work.

Who knows if the government in negotiations with Unions is giving away the farm. There are no market penalties to be paid. There is only grumbling from the public when taxes need to be raised or new tax revenues are sought.

You mean like the grumbling from the public when Harper cut corporate taxes by $12.5 billion per year? Yeah, that money has to be made up somewhere, like from ordinary taxpayers, and of course, by cutting salaries, pensions and benefits for government employees, right?

The public union can no longer point to the private sector and say we need to get equal pay and benefits for equal work. They are now leading in wages and benefits in most areas - one exception being in upper management.

Well, no, actually they're not. But in fact, the whole reason for government to treat its employees well was to set an example to the private sector of how things ought to be, and, of course, to get the best employees. So government paid a good wage, with decent, though not exceptional benefits. Heck, it's not like public employees didn't have to even contribute to their pensions, like the auto workers.

Next thing you know, government is the best employer in the nation, the best benefits and entitlements and the private sector is paying for it all plus their own employees.

So you think they ought to be setting an example in the other direction. That is, cut pensions, cut sick pay, cut wages, and jam people into smaller and smaller cubicles? This, of course, will lead to only the best and brightest going to work for the government! And no doubt productivity will soar! And that's how we want it throughout the country. Damn employees, always wanting things! Don't they know what a drain on corporate profits that is!?

[Boges]

When it comes to the Federal Civil Service. This could be one great reason why people are hostile to unions.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Clement+outline+sick+leave+disability+changes/8503216/story.html

OTTAWA — Treasury Board President Tony Clement is poised to announce sweeping changes today to the way sick leave and disability are managed in Canada’s public service that are aimed at reducing absenteeism and boosting productivity.

The government is expected to begin the overhaul with a new short-term disability plan that will replace the existing banked sick leave and introduce a case management system that puts more emphasis on tracking employees who are off sick as well as prevention, rehabilitation and wellness to get the ill and injured back to work faster.

On any given day, 19,000 public servants are booked off on some kind of sick leave. On average, federal employees were absent 12.5 days last year — twice the rate of employees in the private sector.

In the core public service, workers are off an average of 18 days, when paid and unpaid sick leave, workers’ compensation and disability leave are taken into account.

Sure you can blame governments for negotiating these agreements with Unions. But these are the type of benefits that society simply can no longer afford.

This is the same sick day thing that made Ontario Teachers have a temper tantrum late last year.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Boges

[Argus]

When it comes to the Federal Civil Service. This could be one great reason why people are hostile to unions.

Jealousy.

Sure you can blame governments for negotiating these agreements with Unions. But these are the type of benefits that society simply can no longer afford.

No? The cost is just a fraction of the $11.5 billion the government gave to corporations in their last big tax cut (there have been others before it). If society can't afford sick leave for public servants, maybe they can't afford fat tax cuts for corporate Canada either... ?

This is the same sick day thing that made Ontario Teachers have a temper tantrum late last year.

Not quite. The teachers got to cash out theirs, I believe.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Argus

[Boges]

It's rather ironic when you call someone who says banking sick days is wrong jealous but then start ranting about how cutting taxes is akin to giving money to corporations. That money should be funding my lavish sick leave benefits!!!!

That sounds like jealousy to me.

There are many sensible ways to allow people to take sick days. Allowing people to bank them isn't one of them.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Boges

[Argus]

It's rather ironic when you call someone who says banking sick days is wrong jealous but then start ranting about how cutting taxes is akin to giving money to corporations. That money should be funding my lavish sick leave benefits!!!!

That sounds like jealousy to me.

There are many sensible ways to allow people to take sick days. Allowing people to bank them isn't one of them.

On the one hand, the government complains about how many days off people take and on the other complains that they're banking unused sick leave Which is it? If people aren't taking their sick leave then there's no real cost involved. I plan on leaving the public service in the next month or two, for example, and will leave behind hundreds of hours, months, of unused sick leave. But not everyone is as healthy as I am.

And cutting taxes is fine. I'm all for cutting taxes. As long as we can afford it. Clearly, that isn't the case with cutting corporate taxes. We are in a deficit situation and have been for years. Under those circumstances, only a fool cuts taxes. And if you cut taxes by that much to the corporations, the money has to be made up elsewhere. That means cutting services for individuals, or raising personal taxes, or both. Such things involve weighing the pros and cons. I see no 'pro' in cutting corporate tax. It did not result in improved employment nor expansion of business in Canada. It led, as far as I can tell, to nothing more than more money flowing into the pockets of the wealthy who own those corporations, and flowing out of the pockets of the middle class.

It just seems all a part of the corporate agenda. Eliminate unions, cut salaries, cut benefits, cut rights, all to improve corporate profits.

[Boges]

On the one hand, the government complains about how many days off people take and on the other complains that they're banking unused sick leave Which is it? If people aren't taking their sick leave then there's no real cost involved.

You shouldn't be allowed to bank sick days, also you shouldn't have a job where you feel there are no consequences for taking a day off when you aren't sick. People don't try to tell me that Civil Servants are actually more than 2 times sicker than the rest of the population.

I think when you give a person a sick day, they believe it's there's to do with what they please. I don't think you should have sick days. I don't get sick days but I can take days off when I'm sick and if I'm taking many days because of an underlying condition I can take short-term disability. I see nothing wrong with this.

It led, as far as I can tell, to nothing more than more money flowing into the pockets of the wealthy who own those corporations, and flowing out of the pockets of the middle class.It just seems all a part of the corporate agenda. Eliminate unions, cut salaries, cut benefits, cut rights, all to improve corporate profits.

Demonizing corporate profits is fashionable because people think they just go into the pockets of very wealthy people. But profits go into small-time investors too. A lot of investors include pension plans that serve your average union member.

So it's not as easy as just labeling corporations as these evil entities.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Boges

[PIK]

Boges is right. Working for the PS was like wearing a badge of honour. Pay was not the best but benefits were great. Then the union took hold and turned them into a bunch of whinny babies.

[Pliny]

Not sure where you're writing in from, but here in Canada government LIKES monopolistic services. That's why we have so little competition in the private sector. Government regulations ensure we only have a half dozen banks, three telecom companies, three cable companies, three phone companies, etc. etc. And so we pay the highest, or among the highest rates in the world for everything. We generally have one electricity company which charges us whatever it feels like, and even when we have more private sector companies, ie, gas stations, they all pretty much charge exactly the same anyway. We have a bunch of retail outlets, even Target's coming to Canada. Of course, they're still going to charge us a lot more than they do in the US because, well, they can.

That should tell you something about the "free market"? Can you blame capitalism for anything where only some distorted form of corporate cronyism exists?

I can think of any number of private sector strikes which went on for months, even years.

Good luck to them then.

No public service strike ever lasts long because the employer in this case can simply order their employees back to work.

Or settle quickly because of an upcoming election.

You mean like the grumbling from the public when Harper cut corporate taxes by $12.5 billion per year? Yeah, that money has to be made up somewhere, like from ordinary taxpayers, and of course, by cutting salaries, pensions and benefits for government employees, right?

That money doesn't have to be made up. Revenues probably increased after those cuts. But just another example of corporate cronyism.

Well, no, actually they're not. But in fact, the whole reason for government to treat its employees well was to set an example to the private sector of how things ought to be, and, of course, to get the best employees. So government paid a good wage, with decent, though not exceptional benefits. Heck, it's not like public employees didn't have to even contribute to their pensions, like the auto workers.

Well, how about we just get a paycheck every couple of weeks. Isn't that the way it should be? Show up and pretend to do some work? The private sector could take some pointers for sure.

So you think they ought to be setting an example in the other direction. That is, cut pensions, cut sick pay, cut wages, and jam people into smaller and smaller cubicles? This, of course, will lead to only the best and brightest going to work for the government! And no doubt productivity will soar! And that's how we want it throughout the country. Damn employees, always wanting things! Don't they know what a drain on corporate profits that is!?

I think only old pensioners should work for the government since productivity isn't really important although if you really needed it they would probably do best. Why waste young lives pushing papers and yawning out the windows?

[Bryan]

Jealousy.

That's an assholic way of looking at it. If you're paid to do a job, and you screw off instead of doing what you're paid to do, the boss isn't "jealous" when he gets pissed off at you ripping him off.

Likewise, people are pissed off because we are paying for Public Servants to be lazier, less productive, and paid more than the people who are paying their salaries. They are stealing from us.

[Argus]

You shouldn't be allowed to bank sick days, also you shouldn't have a job where you feel there are no consequences for taking a day off when you aren't sick. People don't try to tell me that Civil Servants are actually more than 2 times sicker than the rest of the population.

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Ever heard of that? We have three numbers on this. The government says 18 days a year, the Tea Party, excuse me, the Canadian Federation of Business, says 15 days a year. The union says 8 days a year.

I think when you give a person a sick day, they believe it's there's to do with what they please. I don't think you should have sick days.

Let me guess. There shouldn't be public health care either, nor public education. Everyone's on their own, and if they get sick, well, they should just die without inconveniencing the rest of us.

Demonizing corporate profits is fashionable because people think they just go into the pockets of very wealthy people. But profits go into small-time investors too. A lot of investors include pension plans that serve your average union member.

People demonize corporate profits when they use their money to influence politicians into cutting their taxes again and again, and then into cutting services for people. As for investors, the vast majority of corporate bonds and stocks are held by the well-heeled. More than half are owned by the top 1%. The top 10% own 81% of all stocks and bonds. More than 2/3rds of the US has less than $5000 in the market.

[Argus]

Boges is right. Working for the PS was like wearing a badge of honour. Pay was not the best but benefits were great. Then the union took hold and turned them into a bunch of whinny babies.

Sheer ignorance. Those benefits came because of the union negotiating them. You think the government just felt happy one day and decided to give us all those benefits? They came about slowly, incrementally, through one contract negotiation after another over the decades.

Furthermore, what is this 'whiny babies' bullshit? The government cuts corporate taxes and the GST and then says "Oh my, we're short of cash! We're going to have to take back all those things we signed contracts for over the years" and we're supposed to just smile gratefully?