Time To Fight Anti-Union Leislation

[PrimeNumber]

As a frequent reader, Cybercoma is the member that has it's own opinion, not just a Parrot for Teachers Union. Cyber maybe to my left in general, but certainly doesn't parrot any party.

If unions didn't protect the lazy, then they would be the most productive all the time. Large organizations that have the most modernized manufacturing systems are normally also unionized. With the manufacturing know how they have, they should be the most efficient.

Having launched manufacturing systems in different continents, the lazy employees really hurt facilities here. Labour here maybe more expensive, but is far more skilled, educated and quality conscious than most. To make sure that the company cannot identify the lazy members, the union puts in rules that do not allow companies track things or change things... Despite having world class labour here, unions are a hindrance. I think we should look to German or Japan for union structures. That and eliminate the political activism from unions would be a good first step.

The political activism of unions is why I don't mind Bill 377...

While were at it can we limit the political activism of Corporations?

No other organization in Canada be it public, private or crown corporations, non-profit organizations, charities(though the Cons are trying), political parties, even fully-publicly funded government departments, ministers, MP's or senators are required to report and publically disclose details of their internal finances and affairs to anywhere the same degree unions will have to under Bill 377. So until that happens, I wont support Bill 377.

MP'S disclose using only one financial statement with only 14 items. Senators only report 5 items in a single statement for their use of public funds. The Harper Government has even refused to disclose the amount of public funds spent for political staff and top officials, including Harper’s former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, citing "privacy". Yet they expect Unions to do so.

In the Unions I have worked in, we and only we are privy to the information that entails or dues, not the public.

[DFCaper]

While were at it can we limit the political activism of Corporations?

No other organization in Canada be it public, private or crown corporations, non-profit organizations, charities(though the Cons are trying), political parties, even fully-publicly funded government departments, ministers, MP's or senators are required to report and publically disclose details of their internal finances and affairs to anywhere the same degree unions will have to under Bill 377. So until that happens, I wont support Bill 377.

MP'S disclose using only one financial statement with only 14 items. Senators only report 5 items in a single statement for their use of public funds. The Harper Government has even refused to disclose the amount of public funds spent for political staff and top officials, including Harper’s former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, citing "privacy". Yet they expect Unions to do so.

In the Unions I have worked in, we and only we are privy to the information that entails or dues, not the public.

I also agree with your points. I think our rules for election financing here in Canada are a great start. Companies are here to serve us, not the other way around. I just see Unions as companies as well...

[PrimeNumber]

I also agree with your points. I think our rules for election financing here in Canada are a great start. Companies are here to serve us, not the other way around. I just see Unions as companies as well...

You're quite right about that. I think both should be bared from donations and lobbying honestly. It's the only way to have a fair system, otherwise you have legal corruption, instead of MP's voting for their constituencies, they feel compelled to vote otherwise. Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP would all have less campaign money but we all know that money just goes to partisan attack ads anyways. Lets make it about the people that elected them, not the Corporations and Unions.

[waldo]

Vesides that, I got nuffin....

LOL You are the gift that keeps on giving!

what were you so emboldened to post at the waldo a short while back... I'm still recovering, you brute! Good job with your spelling patrol!!!

... you're the Ezra Levant of the forum.... making something terrible out of absolutely nothing... give it a rest already.

[PIK]

I always give arguments. i am against the obvious assault on unions. Where do you stand besides waiting for others to post what you might want to say?

I am all for bringing the unions back to earth.

[Argus]

I have to wonder about the life experience of most of you whining about how unions aren't necessary in this day and age. I mean, it's like you believe management is no longer capable of arbitrary, unfair, and even dangerous behaviour towards their employees. Gosh, management? They'd never do that! They're all like saints!

I've worked for a variety of employers over the years, including many in the private sector. I was glad to get into the government where there was at least some protection from the arbitrary incompetence and stupidity of managers. I think all workplaces ought to be unionized.

That being said, my opinion on this bill changed over the course of the last Ontario provincial election. If unions are going to spend tens of millions of dollars of forcibly collected dues from their membership on politicians many of those members don't support, the membership has a right to know it.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Argus

[overthere]

There is little to discuss about private sector unions. Labour is a component of making any widget or service. If it proves unprofitable, or provides a low return on investment to do it with union labour here, the company involved either folds or moves somewhere that their business is profitable. Pretty simple.

Some unions have an awareness of reality , some do not. Say goodbye to those that do not, and say goodbye to those industries while you are at it.

Public sector unions are different, since a) government management skills are brutal the public is often unaware that they are so poorly served by both management and union and c) there is limited opportunity to outsource govt functions to improve service/reduce cost.. Actually there are many opportunities, but it is extremely rare to find govt mgmt and politicans with sufficient courage to act.

[Hal 9000]

Every time I see a barge with millions of dollars worth of unmilled raw timber heading to Japan, I think of the influence of unions.

[PIK]

You're quite right about that. I think both should be bared from donations and lobbying honestly. It's the only way to have a fair system, otherwise you have legal corruption, instead of MP's voting for their constituencies, they feel compelled to vote otherwise. Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP would all have less campaign money but we all know that money just goes to partisan attack ads anyways. Lets make it about the people that elected them, not the Corporations and Unions.

Good pts.

[segnosaur]

Unions are legalized form of price fixing.

In any other industry, it would be considered illegal for competing entitites to agree to fix prices. (Governments can and do prosecute companies for agreeing to work together to set prices artificially high.) However, unions do this regularly, as employee agree to work together to elevate wages higher than they would be if the laws of supply and demand were at work.

I have to wonder about the life experience of most of you whining about how unions aren't necessary in this day and age. I mean, it's like you believe management is no longer capable of arbitrary, unfair...

You see, the problem is how do you define 'fair'.

If I go to a store and the price tag says on a TV says $1000, the owners might think its a fair price. But is it? What if its got a 300% profit margin?. Likewise, if a business owner says "This work is worth $10/hour", and an employee says "No, its worth $20", why exactly do you think that the employee's expectations should be the measure of fairness?

...and even dangerous behaviour towards their employees. Gosh, management? They'd never do that! They're all like saints!

Nobody claimed management was "all saints". However, there are a multitude of issues that to limit what management can do:

- There are laws that deal with hazardous working conditions, as well as general employee welfare. Companies can and do get sued on a regular basis for violating these laws

- A manager/company who treats employees poorly will often see business decline as a result of poor service due to employee turnover and/or disgruntlement.

Now, does that mean that unions never help people deal with bad situations at work? Not at all... I'm sure that there are plenty of anecdotes where some employee was treated poorly until the union stepped in. But for every anecdote where the union becomes the "brave defender of the worker", someone else can probably point to a union worker who is lazy and/or overpaid.

I've worked for a variety of employers over the years, including many in the private sector. I was glad to get into the government where there was at least some protection from the arbitrary incompetence and stupidity of managers.

I've worked in both the private (non-union) and public (unionized) sectors too. And you know what? The absolute worst management I've ever had to deal with was when I worked in the government... people that lacked both the technical understanding to handle the project they were on, AND an inability to recognize their limitations. But here's the problem... they too were part of the union. People that in a private business would be either demoted or fired (or at least moved to an area where they might cause less damange) were left in place.

[WWWTT]

That being said, my opinion on this bill changed over the course of the last Ontario provincial election. If unions are going to spend tens of millions of dollars of forcibly collected dues from their membership on politicians many of those members don't support, the membership has a right to know it.

Haven't heard how bill c-377 has been changed since being reintroduced into the senate.

It may not have much more teeth anymore nor hit as many unions?

WWWTT

[Topaz]

Unions are needed for some workers, job security and I'll give you an ie...one worker with lower seniority, was given more hours to work then a worker with more seniority, because he had a relative on the Board of Directors and HIS superior was friends of the family. The high seniority, had not belonged to a union, he would lose out on regulars hours, most of getting 32-36 hrs, while the other workers was getting up 44 hours and if they don't worker 150 hours per month they lose health benefits. So in todays world, yeah there is a need for unions.

[Michael Hardner]

Unions are needed for some workers,

I would say in an industry where there is a monopoly or something close to that, then you need to ensure that there is protection for the workers.

[Argus]

Every time I see a barge with millions of dollars worth of unmilled raw timber heading to Japan, I think of the influence of unions.

You mean the lack of influence of unions.

[segnosaur]

Unions are needed for some workers, job security and I'll give you an ie...one worker with lower seniority, was given more hours to work then a worker with more seniority, because he had a relative on the Board of Directors and HIS superior was friends of the family. The high seniority, had not belonged to a union, he would lose out on regulars hours, most of getting 32-36 hrs, while the other workers was getting up 44 hours and if they don't worker 150 hours per month they lose health benefits. So in todays world, yeah there is a need for unions.

How do you know that the worker with lower seniority got more hours only because he had a relative on the board of directors? Perhaps they were actually more competent or were better workers in some way?

I'm sure there are plenty of workers in union shops who get preferential treatment due to their "seniority" even though there are other employees who are much more deserving.

At one point in my career, I was a full time employee of the government... had a BSc and and MSc in computers; as part of my training, I spent time in the "operations" area. There were people there who's only job was to load tapes and run batch jobs. They were actually upset that I was hired on in a position "above" them, and thought they should have been promoted, despite not being able to program (or do anything else I spent the better part of a decade learning.)

[segnosaur]

I would say in an industry where there is a monopoly or something close to that, then you need to ensure that there is protection for the workers.

Why would it matter if there were an industry monopoly? Usually worker's skills are transferrable (or they can be easily retrained)... if someone works as a file clerk in some business with a monopoly, they can probably very easily learn to file for some other company in another industry.

The exception to that might be those who's jobs require long periods of training (something like an electrical engineer working for a power utility); however, usually those workers will already be earning higher wages/benefits due to the limited supply of people with those skills.

[Argus]

In any other industry, it would be considered illegal for competing entitites to agree to fix prices. (Governments can and do prosecute companies for agreeing to work together to set prices artificially high.) However, unions do this regularly, as employee agree to work together to elevate wages higher than they would be if the laws of supply and demand were at work.

Allowing employees to organize is simply recognition of the ENORMOUS disparity in negotiating power between employers, particularly large employes, and individual employees. Furthermore, if you take a particular employer as an example, you want every individual employee to have to negotiate by themselves with their manager? Yet every manager's hands are tied by the overall policies of the employer. One department or branch can't pay more to its employees than another, for wages and benefits are set by the owner. By your reckoning that means the employer is price fixing and colluding in their negotiations, as well.

You see, the problem is how do you define 'fair'.

A manager fires you to make room for the son of a friend of his. A manager puts you on the midnight shift because he doesn't like you. A manager bullies and harasses you because he thinks you're a pansy, or stupid, or fat, or just weak and he's a bully. A company fires you so it doesn't have to pay you a pension. You're accused of wrongdoing and fired or punished without any evidence. A manager refuses you permission to go on vacation. A manager harasses you because you call in sick. A company brings in cheap foreign workers and fires you. Lots and lots of reasons to say employees can be treated unfairly.

- There are laws that deal with hazardous working conditions, as well as general employee welfare. Companies can and do get sued on a regular basis for violating these laws

Yes, and it can take years before company's make any changes, if they do at all, and that presumes the government actually cares enough to put a lot of pressure on them.

- A manager/company who treats employees poorly will often see business decline as a result of poor service due to employee turnover and/or disgruntlement.

Nonsense. Wal-Mart treats its employees like garbage. All its customers care about is low prices.

Now, does that mean that unions never help people deal with bad situations at work? Not at all... I'm sure that there are plenty of anecdotes where some employee was treated poorly until the union stepped in. But for every anecdote where the union becomes the "brave defender of the worker", someone else can probably point to a union worker who is lazy and/or overpaid.

Because there are no lazy employees in non-union shops. There are no overpaid CEOs out there driving their companies into bankruptcy year after year. How many companies fail because of a union as opposed to because of incompetent, highly overpaid management?

I've worked in both the private (non-union) and public (unionized) sectors too. And you know what? The absolute worst management I've ever had to deal with was when I worked in the government... people that lacked both the technical understanding to handle the project they were on, AND an inability to recognize their limitations. But here's the problem... they too were part of the union. People that in a private business would be either demoted or fired (or at least moved to an area where they might cause less damange) were left in place.

Managers part of the union? Not in he federal government. I'll admit I've come across tons of incompetent people in management in the federal government, but none of them are unionized, and for the most part, the more incompetent they are the higher they get promoted. That's because all their time and focus is on self-promotion, sucking up and doing whatever their bosses want without regard to the affect on the department/agency or employees. The worst of them can't make a decision on anything without spending a fortune in time and money for studies, meetings, surveys, business plans and consultations so they can't be blamed if it's the wrong decision.

[segnosaur]

Every time I see a barge with millions of dollars worth of unmilled raw timber heading to Japan, I think of the influence of unions.

You mean the lack of influence of unions.

No, I'm pretty sure he meant the influence of unions.

Having a union means that businesses have to pay more for labour; you may consider what the lumber workers are demanding to be a "fair wage"; however, if costs are driven up too much, a company may be forced out of business, or change its business model (which could mean exporting raw materials rather than finished product).

I'm not familiar with how much of an effect unions have in the lumber business, but an increased union influence will likely drive up costs; hardly an incentive for companies shipping unmilled timber to turn around and do their processing here in Canada.

[Argus]

No, I'm pretty sure he meant the influence of unions.

Then he's wrong. I recall at the time the protests of unions at the government's decision to allow the export of raw logs.

The impetus for the export was not high labour here but the desire of the Japanese to do the work there with their own people and reap both the higher profits of a finished good, and the taxes and other benefits of employing people in Japan. The choice, as I recall it, was either ship them the raw logs, or they'd get them from Brazil or some other place.

[Moonbox]

Then he's wrong. I recall at the time the protests of unions at the government's decision to allow the export of raw logs.

The impetus for the export was not high labour here but the desire of the Japanese to do the work there with their own people and reap both the higher profits of a finished good, and the taxes and other benefits of employing people in Japan. The choice, as I recall it, was either ship them the raw logs, or they'd get them from Brazil or some other place.

The conclusion you're drawing here is feeble. Transporting processed lumber vs raw timber yields minimal cost benefits, particularly by sea. Considering Japan is significantly less unionized and that sawmill workers aren't particularly high-skilled, they likely had significant labor cost advantages in addition to the benefits of processing the logs at home.

The protests of the union were 100% pointless in this case. Regardless of whether Canada banned the export, its sawmills weren't going to get Japanese business. What's worse, the ban would also kill Canadian jobs harvesting the logs.

From your position, this example at best does absolutely nothing to support your argument. At worst, it can serve as an example of Canadian unions driving jobs overseas. As usual, your logic is exemplary.

[GostHacked]

You know what they say about people who criticize typos........simple-minded.

Spelling and grammar are important to clearly state a position. Otherwise, people will call you an uneducated educator. Irony.

[Hal 9000]

You mean the lack of influence of unions.

You have to understand that a company will pay people to engineer an area and logging road, they pay a crew to build those roads, another crew to fall the trees, truck the trees, scalers, dry land sort, barges plus all the business fees, taxes and equipment etc etc. Then they have to pay a bunch of millworkers to mill the timber. Now, if a union insists on even 5$ per hour more - it doesn't seem like a lot, but it's actually very substantial to any company (tens-hundreds of thousands dollars per day depending on the size of the company).

I know for a fact that these companies did everything possible to convince the unions that they couldn't afford what was being demanded. The trees had to come out of the bush so the cuts had to be made to the millworkers. It's actually cheaper for the companies to sell the raw timber and then buy it back as finished lumber. That's what unions have done.

[overthere]

Every time I see a barge with millions of dollars worth of unmilled raw timber heading to Japan, I think of the influence of unions.

That may not be a good example.

Japan buys some milled lumber from Canada. Japn is a country like Canada in that most homes are wood frame. They also buy raw logs for a special purpose, and that are larger or better quality than what is available locally. Traditional Japanese post and beam structures(including Shinto temples) are still built using traditional precision handcrafted wood. They don't want milled lumber or precut beams, they do it themselves using hand tools on site c/w some amazing joinery. Maybe that is what was on the barge.

[Michael Hardner]

Why would it matter if there were an industry monopoly? Usually worker's skills are transferrable (or they can be easily retrained)... if someone works as a file clerk in some business with a monopoly, they can probably very easily learn to file for some other company in another industry.

For the most part, and I don't think many file clerks are unionized in Canada anyway. If they are then they likely work for the federal government where indeed the skills may not be transferrable.

The exception to that might be those who's jobs require long periods of training (something like an electrical engineer working for a power utility); however, usually those workers will already be earning higher wages/benefits due to the limited supply of people with those skills.

All you would have to do to lower wages is train somebody else, though.

[overthere]

For the most part, and I don't think many file clerks are unionized in Canada anyway. If they are then they likely work for the federal government where indeed the skills may not be transferrable.

Sure, they are unionized and numerous at all levels of government.

The skills are transferable, but there is simply no way they would get paid anywhere near as much for the same work in the private sector.