Why are people so hostile to unions?

[Boges]

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.

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.

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.

Nice hyperbole. I question sick days and you basically say. "Well if we shouldn't have sick days, might as well get rid of public health and public education"

I never said people shouldn't be allowed to take sick days at full pay. I just oppose to having them used as a commodity. I have 4 sick days left, better use them, lose them or bank them.

Oh and Unions don't try to influence government politics?

[Argus]

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.

I'll grant you that government is inefficient. That has nothing to do with lazy workers. It has to do with processes in place which require long meetings and documentation before doing anything. And those processes were put in place by ... government. You see, the government doesn't trust its public servants. Senior management are terrified of taking responsibility for anything, so they design policies and processes which will allow them to approve things -- finally -- only after everyone and their Aunt Edith have proven that it's the right thing to do and can't go wrong. Lower ranking managers have no power. Micromanagement is endemic because management's primary focus is covering its ass. When you have to fill out 47 forms and get buy-in from across the country to change a light bulb, well, yeah, it's inefficient. But don't blame the civil servants who are jumping through all the hoops for taking so much time to get things done. Blame the government and senior managers who put in all the hoops so they could have plenty of 'oversight'.

And frankly, most of the people whining about 'lazy public servants' would be hopelessly incompetent in pushing things along even if they could get hired, which most can't. Writing out detailed business requirements and high level requirement documents is not something most of those bitching would want to do or could do.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

I never said people shouldn't be allowed to take sick days at full pay. I just oppose to having them used as a commodity. I have 4 sick days left, better use them, lose them or bank them.

Oh and Unions don't try to influence government politics?

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.

Do those words look familiar to you? I read them not long ago.

As far as unions influencing politics, I generally don't approve of union politics, but it's kind of a counterweight to the corporate lobbyists so I'm okay with it.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree with a lot of your post - but to say it has 'nothing' to do with lazy workers is overreaching too, don't you think ?

The culture can promote laziness, I buy that, but if laziness wasn't there in the first place then things wouldn't be where they are now.

I'll grant you that government is inefficient. That has nothing to do with lazy workers. It has to do with processes in place which require long meetings and documentation before doing anything. And those processes were put in place by ... government.

[MadX]

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.

You'd be surprised, many high ranking corporate executives would fit the diagnosis of psychopathy. Take a look at this link from Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/

Edited June 11, 2013 by MadX

[Boges]

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.

Do those words look familiar to you? I read them not long ago.

As far as unions influencing politics, I generally don't approve of union politics, but it's kind of a counterweight to the corporate lobbyists so I'm okay with it.

I don't approve of set sick days because people use them as defacto vacation days, it's a commodity.

What don't you get about an employer and an HR department just allowing people to be sick when they're sick. And if they're sick a lot then perhaps something needs to be addressed.

[PIK]

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?

I chum with PS people I know all about them.

[Argus]

I agree with a lot of your post - but to say it has 'nothing' to do with lazy workers is overreaching too, don't you think ?

The culture can promote laziness, I buy that, but if laziness wasn't there in the first place then things wouldn't be where they are now.

I've had this discussion with managers before. Managers complain, for example, about employees chatting, surfing the internet, or using hand held devices to text people instead of working. I have no sympathy. My response is "Are they getting the work done you have assigned them?" Generally speaking, their answer is yes. To which I just shrug. If you want then to stop screwing around then assign them more work. An employee should be busy all day. Unfortunately, in an organization the size of government, there are going to be lots of imbalances. I know people who are crushed by their workloads, with pressure and timelines driving them into emotional breakdowns. These are often people who really care about and feel a sense of responsibility to their work. I also know people who complain, yes, complain, they don't have enough work to do. Sitting around doing nothing makes for a very long work day, in case you didn't know. But in most cases the problem is management, not the employees. Lower level supervisors and managers are often so burdened by administrative paperwork and meetings they barely see their own employees! My own managers spends most days in his office with his door closed, when he's there and not off at meetings. He wouldn't even know which employees were present if they didn't call in to tell him they were off. And he certainly has very little idea what any of them is doing or how long it takes to do it. The level of micromanagement has been growing steadily in the public service over the past ten years, and these new performance appraisal ideas will simply increase that burden.

[Michael Hardner]

You'd be surprised, many high ranking corporate executives would fit the diagnosis of psychopathy. Take a look at this link from Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/

Maybe... but a psychopath aims to achieve their objectives, and a people manager needs to keep people happy or they will lose staff. Also, it costs $0 to be nice to people, and helps retention. Most people are actually reasonable, and not interested in trying to sustain a poisonous work environment.

[Michael Hardner]

I've had this discussion with managers before. Managers complain, for example, about employees chatting, surfing the internet, or using hand held devices to text people instead of working. I have no sympathy. My response is "Are they getting the work done you have assigned them?" Generally speaking, their answer is yes. To which I just shrug. If you want then to stop screwing around then assign them more work. An employee should be busy all day. ... . But in most cases the problem is management, not the employees.

Yes, bad management is a major part if not the major part - starting with the very tip top ie. deputy minister. But you yourself use the term 'most cases'. Employees who get used to that environment quickly become adverse to anything better.

I think the whole system needs to be redesigned.

[MadX]

Maybe... but a psychopath aims to achieve their objectives, and a people manager needs to keep people happy or they will lose staff. Also, it costs $0 to be nice to people, and helps retention. Most people are actually reasonable, and not interested in trying to sustain a poisonous work environment.

That might be true at many places Michael but not where I work. I'd say about half of the supervisors are assholes. Now out of those assholes maybe only a couple are true psychopaths but even your garden-variety asshole can still cause a lot of grief. I think many of these people are stressed out and/or have serious mental problems. I'm certain that a couple of them are actually psychopaths.

[Argus]

I don't approve of set sick days because people use them as defacto vacation days, it's a commodity.

What don't you get about an employer and an HR department just allowing people to be sick when they're sick. And if they're sick a lot then perhaps something needs to be addressed.

First, the evidence on how much sick leave they take is debatable. Second, if people are using them as defacto vacation days, and I don't deny some do that, then why is the government's focus on those who have built up huge banks of sick leave? Why is it they (and you) are complaining about banked sick leave? If it's being banked it's not being used as 'defacto vacation days'. Those who just use them don't build up anything.

[Boges]

First, the evidence on how much sick leave they take is debatable. Second, if people are using them as defacto vacation days, and I don't deny some do that, then why is the government's focus on those who have built up huge banks of sick leave? Why is it they (and you) are complaining about banked sick leave? If it's being banked it's not being used as 'defacto vacation days'. Those who just use them don't build up anything.

Because it's extremely expensive. And you're still using it as a commodity. You're not using it as a vacation day, but you're using it as a day's pay when you retire.

That's why the "LIBERAL" Ontario government fought and won a battle with the Ontario teachers trying to cut sick days in half and stop people teachers from banking them. You wouldn't expect the Conservatives to try and do the same?

[Argus]

Yes, bad management is a major part if not the major part - starting with the very tip top ie. deputy minister. But you yourself use the term 'most cases'. Employees who get used to that environment quickly become adverse to anything better.

I think the whole system needs to be redesigned.

I don't disagree. I came from the private sector and will return to it. But there are people who started working for the public service when they were twenty, and have known nothing else. But even if they wanted to change things they have no ability to do so. The government does not trust senior management, who don't trust middle management, who don't trust junior management, who don't trust their employees. That's why every level is trying to micromanage several levels down, and why there is a ton of paperwork and time-consuming meetings and approval stages for the simplest of tasks.

When I was a clerk and someone's monitor went out, I hopped into a cab, went to the local Best Buy, bought a monitor with my government credit card, and had it on his desk within the hour. Then it was fairly simple entering the purchase in the system and forwarding it with the invoice to be signed off on.

Now credit cards are locked in the managers safe because they don't trust employees with them. And they can't make purchases of computers or computer parts anyway because senior management doesn't trust junior management. That has to be done through a central branch purchasing officer who will require purchase orders, multiple approvals and bids. It takes about six weeks to replace a monitor now, and the administrative cost is often higher than the cost of the monitor. Everything is like that. The guy who is a clerk now spends far more time on paperwork than I used to, as does his manager, at a far higher cost, and for worse results. But none of it is their idea.

That, in a nutshell, is what's happened over the last decade. Now expand that to include every manner of small, medium and large task and change and you have a nightmare of soul-deadening bureaucracy.

[Argus]

Because it's extremely expensive. And you're still using it as a commodity. You're not using it as a vacation day, but you're using it as a day's pay when you retire.

That's why the "LIBERAL" Ontario government fought and won a battle with the Ontario teachers trying to cut sick days in half and stop people teachers from banking them. You wouldn't expect the Conservatives to try and do the same?

First, if you take three or more sick days in a row you need a medical certificate. Second, banked sick leave is not expensive if it's not being used. And it is not something you get any kind of cash for when you retire. The Ontario LIBERAL government doesn't care about anything but making itself look good. It will seize on any opportunity to suggest someone else is to blame for its financial mismanagement.

But then I've said before that the present federal tories are really not much different than the liberals in a lot of things. Certainly their own financial mismanagement has led to the current deficit, but you won't ever hear them admit it.

[Boges]

First, if you take three or more sick days in a row you need a medical certificate. Second, banked sick leave is not expensive if it's not being used. And it is not something you get any kind of cash for when you retire. The Ontario LIBERAL government doesn't care about anything but making itself look good. It will seize on any opportunity to suggest someone else is to blame for its financial mismanagement.

But then I've said before that the present federal tories are really not much different than the liberals in a lot of things. Certainly their own financial mismanagement has led to the current deficit, but you won't ever hear them admit it.

So what's the point of banking a sick day if you can't cash in on them at some point?

[Michael Hardner]

That, in a nutshell, is what's happened over the last decade. Now expand that to include every manner of small, medium and large task and change and you have a nightmare of soul-deadening bureaucracy.

I worked for CEIC in the 80s and it was already very much like that. I think the solution is to start new parallel organizations and let the old ones eventually die out.

[Argus]

So what's the point of banking a sick day if you can't cash in on them at some point?

Let's say when you get into your late forties or early fifties you get arthritis, or something equally painful. Let's say you get a bad back, which is something that is endemic to people who sit all day for decades. Then you do find yourself taking off time, perhaps not weeks in a row, but more often a day here or there.

[Boges]

Let's say when you get into your late forties or early fifties you get arthritis, or something equally painful. Let's say you get a bad back, which is something that is endemic to people who sit all day for decades. Then you do find yourself taking off time, perhaps not weeks in a row, but more often a day here or there.

Isn't that what short-term disability is for?

If you're taking time off frequently because of a condition. That's a human resources issue. Perhaps you're job is too taxing, physically for you.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Boges

[Argus]

I worked for CEIC in the 80s and it was already very much like that. I think the solution is to start new parallel organizations and let the old ones eventually die out.

The government will never allow that to happen. It wants oversight, lots of oversight. And that means the deputy ministers want lots of oversight, as do the bureaucrats under them and those beneath them. And all of them are desperate to not be blamed for anything which goes wrong. So they'll invent 'policies' which absolve them from the need for making decisions. Those policies will, as policies tend to be, entirely idiotic in any number of instances, but that's not important. The policy means an executive can simply point to it and say it's not his decision.

And if the 'oversight' costs more than the actual task would have by itself, well, that's a small price to pay for covering up an executive's butt.

[Argus]

Isn't that what short-term disability is for?

If you're taking time off frequently because of a condition. That's a human resources issue. Perhaps you're job is too taxing, physically for you.

Short term disability is for longer periods, not for a Monday morning when your back is killing you because you were in the garden Sunday.

And if you fire all the public servants with bad backs you wouldn't have anyone left to take care of all those programs Canadians are so in love with. You can also, in a way, think of it as a job-related injury. People get it from working for the government.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Argus

[Boges]

Short term disability is for longer periods, not for a Monday morning when your back is killing you because you were in the garden Sunday.

And if you fire all the public servants with bad backs you wouldn't have anyone left to take care of all those programs Canadians are so in love with. You can also, in a way, think of it as a job-related injury. People get it from working for the government.

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.

[Michael Hardner]

The government will never allow that to happen. It wants oversight, lots of oversight

?

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.

[segnosaur]

Assuming its a "closed" shop (i.e. all employees who work there are effectively part of the union)...

- It removes the liberty of the shop owner (and all corporations are ultimately owned by individuals) to negotiate with individual employees has he sees fit

- It removes the liberty of individual employees to negotiate their own wages with the employer, independent of union influence

Well it may be possible that unions curtail liberties but I can tell you from personal experience that non-union shops do exactly the same thing.

No, they don't.

I work part time at a low paying service job (non-unionized of course)....The job I work at has managers that treat their employees like garbage. Workplace bullying and gossip is common.

You see, here's the thing... In my opinion, you are misusing the term 'liberty'.

Having a 'right' or a 'liberty' does not guarantee you a lifetime free of problems (or of having a jerk for a boss). It does not prevent office nepotism, brown nosing, or any of the other troubles you see at your work. Your 'rights' dictate what a government can do to its people, but they do not necessarily dictate how one individual can interact with another. (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.)

[MadX]

You see, here's the thing... In my opinion, you are misusing the term 'liberty'.

Having a 'right' or a 'liberty' does not guarantee you a lifetime free of problems (or of having a jerk for a boss). It does not prevent office nepotism, brown nosing, or any of the other troubles you see at your work. Your 'rights' dictate what a government can do to its people, but they do not necessarily dictate how one individual can interact with another. (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.)

I thought liberty means freedom. If one is afraid to speak out against abuse or is treated poorly for arbitrary reasons, I would consider that a curtailing of liberties. No one will have a life free of problems but why should someone have the right to create then unnecessarily?