Public Sector - Alternatives to Unionization?

[Smallc]

Sorry thats just not how it works. The rate would only be set for the duration of a contract... At which point you would have to renegotiate again, just like you do when a CBA expires.

And for the duration of that contract, a company can't negotiate with mythical money. The government can. Hell, the government can make any ideal it wants, as it has access to virtually unlimited money.

[dre]

And for the duration of that contract, a company can't negotiate with mythical money. The government can. Hell, the government can make any ideal it wants, as it has access to virtually unlimited money.

Same thing goes for the duration of a CBA. The government doesnt have to renegotiate until its over. Its not mythical money either btw, thats just a load of minarchist libertarian horse dung. Tax money is the dues you pay to use services and infrastructure. And In Canada we get a pretty good deal for what we pay compared to other nations.

Theres nothing mythical about it at all. Yes it seems like 30% (or whatever) of your income is a lot to pay but it gives you the use of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of infrastucture and services without which you would be a subsistance liver getting your food from a trap line, or foraging in the woods for roots and berries.

[Smallc]

Tax money is the dues you pay to use services and infrastructure. And In Canada we get a pretty good deal for what we pay compared to other nations.

You obviously misunderstood what I said. I'm most definitely not a libertarian. What I'm saying is that there are fewer constraints on government negotiators, as there's always more money in the pot if needed.

[Argus]

Then allow people to negotiate their own contracts.

Aside from individuals with a scarce skill ordinariy people have no ability to negotiate with a large entity. They take what they're given or walk.

[Argus]

I don't even think that whether the workers want an alternative or not is the issue. More important is do the taxpayers, the ones who have to pay for it, want an alternative?

The taxpayers are the ultimate 'supervisors' of what the government does. If it doesn't like the government paying what they feel are exhobitant fees to employees it ought to terminate their contract -- the politicians contract, that is.

[Argus]

And it absolutely should. This country desperately needs right to work legislation.

Why? Too many workers earning a living wage?

[Argus]

It's not mindless Union Bashing. It's. Public Sector Union Bashing.

Public Sector Unions don't have to respect to market conditions. They get the money they make forcibly removed from the public they're supposed to serve.

If a private workforce want to organise fine. The employer can close up shop if they don't like it. A government can't really do that.

Right, the Tories have repeatedly demonstrated how helpless they are before union demands.

[Argus]

No, they actually wouldn't. The government would be paying a set rate, and the company would be dealing with a fixed amount of money during negotiations.

I've seen this any number of times. Except with exceptionally skilled workers what you wind up is a few fat cats pimping out desperate workers and raking in a big percentage of their salaries for doing very little. What you wind up with is workers who have a lower pay rate and far fewer benefits, and consequently, a workforce with a much higher turnover. This might not matter to much in low skilled jobs but it definitely does in jobs which require many months of training to become proficient. With most government jobs you need people who are familiar with the variety of often specialized, in-house software applications AND a complex array of processes and policies, often from multiple agencies (ie, Treasury Board, Finance, etc.). It takes time to build up expertise in these multiple systems, processes and policies, which is why the government wants a low turnover.

[Guest]

I find it hard to believe that in a company with thousands of employees, there wouldn't be standard pay for positions and negotiation for pay raises as a group.

There must be a lot of time and money spent on individual evaluation and pay structures.

.

I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't want to be paid commensurate with how hard you work. Two equally qualified people do not equal employees make.

And then there's the ridiculous issue of seniority.

[jacee]

I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't want to be paid commensurate with how hard you work. Two equally qualified people do not equal employees make.

And then there's the ridiculous issue of seniority.

Oh I don't work at all anymore.

Seniority ya know.

You could try that in education.

Getting rid of the unions would be a tricky bit.

And it would quickly become obvious that it was unwieldy, costly and unfair ... and collective bargaining would be back.

.

[Guest]

I was a member of the BCGEU for about 16 years and I much prefer the non union position I have now. I'm not arguing for the elimination of Unions. I just can't understand why anyone would want to be in one.

Edited May 8, 2015 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

Right and once that contract expires the government no longer has the infructure, equipment, and personel in place to reclaim delivery of the service. At that point they are over a barrel. Service levels go down, and costs go up. Also... many things that get contracted need very large organizations to operate. There is often only one such entity in a region so theres little in the way of competition.

It depends on how things are run - it's the services that need to be managed, that doesn't mean infrastructure needs to be sold.

But in any case youre failing to use critical thinking. You are starting with an unvalidated assumption (that theres a problem), following that up with another unvalidated assumption (that contracting out would resolve the problem), and then making a rather extreme recommendation (contract out the civil service). This is a really bad way to formulate public policy.

I stated my assumption, which I thought would be accepted without question. Do you need me to validate it then ? Contracting out isn't exactly 'extreme' - it happens all the time.

[Mighty AC]

I do think a public payor, private delivery system for public services is actually one of the best models in theory, but to put in place without acknowledging its potential downsides, and figuring how to address them would be irresponsible.

Is a government department managing a private company really that much different than managing a bureaucrat in charge of scores of public employees? In many respects it would be easier to get results from a private company through contract stipulations than navigating the minefield of generous public compensation packages, limited job descriptions and powerful unions. Plus, some public services are already successfully contracted out.

[Bryan]

Aside from individuals with a scarce skill ordinariy people have no ability to negotiate with a large entity. They take what they're given or walk.

That isn't true at all. Every non-unionized job I've ever had I was asked how much I wanted, and we negotiated from there. It was only in the union jobs where the salary was non-negotiable.

[Smallc]

That isn't true at all. Every non-unionized job I've ever had I was asked how much I wanted, and we negotiated from there.

Same with me. It's a little different now though, because I work for myself.

[dre]

I stated my assumption, which I thought would be accepted without question. Do you need me to validate it then ? Contracting out isn't exactly 'extreme' - it happens all the time.

Yes I know... questioning the assumptions that are used to come up with a conclusion is the core pillar of critical thinking. That was my point.

And yes it IS extreme. We should be CONTRACTING IN. Not OUT. People are getting bilked by this trend we have seen over the last decade or two of privatization and contracting out. We are replacing good jobs in the economy with ***** ones, we are raising prices for consumers of services and reducing quality and access, and the investors in these firms are the only ones that win.

I notice nobody touched the two examples from Ontario that I posted... That show how badly Ontarians have been hosed by contracting out IT and Medical diagnostics. Its cost hundreds of millions of dollars MORE than if it was contracted IN, and the level of services have gone down.

But if you want to pay MORE for LESS and replace good jobs with crappy ones, then I guess youre on the right track.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Michael Hardner
profanity

[Boges]

Who cares if they're good jobs, the public is completely subsidizing them.

[dre]

Who cares if they're good jobs, the public is completely subsidizing them.

People with good jobs buy things and pay taxes. And the public pays LESS for contracted IN services than it does for contracted OUT services.

[Boges]

People with good jobs buy things and pay taxes. And the public pays LESS for contracted IN services than it does for contracted OUT services.

Pay taxes LOL. They're entire income is derived from taxes!

And as discussed in the the Snow Removal thread I started last week. If contracted services aren't doing what they're expected to do, then the government should rectify that problem. There should be incentives put in place to ensure that what the government is paying for gets done. Regardless of whether it's done by a 3rd party or not.

Do you think the LCBO would be soooooo much worse if they contracted out the wasteful Union that runs that place? I doubt it.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Boges

[dre]

Can any of the proponents of contracting out services provide me with an example of it really saving the public money without degradation of service or reduction of access. The example needs to take into account the effect on the economy of replacing good jobs with crappy one, and the impact on government revenues of a greater share of the revenue being taxed as investment income.

Even IF services levels are maintained and the cost stays the same... a substancial portion of the pie is now being returned to investors in these private firms as dividends which are taxed at a lower rate than middle class jobs. So the tax payer STILL loses in this scenario, which for the most part is a "best case" scenario. In some of the examples I showed you the public actually got hosed out of hundreds of millions of dollars. They paid a lot more for a lot less.

[Boges]

Can any of the proponents of contracting out services provide me with an example of it really saving the public money without degradation of service or reduction of access. The example needs to take into account the effect on the economy of replacing good jobs with crappy one, and the impact on government revenues of a greater share of the revenue being taxed as investment income.

Even IF services levels are maintained and the cost stays the same... a substancial portion of the pie is now being returned to investors in these private firms as dividends which are taxed at a lower rate than middle class jobs. So the tax payer STILL loses in this scenario, which for the most part is a "best case" scenario. In some of the examples I showed you the public actually got hosed out of hundreds of millions of dollars. They paid a lot more for a lot less.

So basically the main reason is to not contracting out is to preserve good union jobs.

I frankly don't care about good public service jobs. They're getting paid with money removed from the public by force. Janitors need to be civil servants because they'll have a good wage and funnel that money back into the economy.

Why not have the government just pay everyone a good wage?

[Bryan]

A good example would be garbage collection here in Winnipeg.

There absolutely were growing pains when it was first contracted out. A private company doing a job that had always been public, it's to be expected that they might not be able to hit the ground running. But the contract reflected that probability, and included penalties for late or missed pickups. That meant that as the private company was ramping up to be able to do the job effectively, the cost to the city got less and less. So much so that, at one point private company was paying the city rather than the city paying it. That gave the private contractor some serious motivation to get more efficient and fix the problems so that they could actually get paid for the job.

Now, the collection is like clockwork. It's far more reliable than the city collection ever was.

The real bonus is, if the private company balks at what they're offered when the contract is up in 5 years, the city is allowed to see if anyone else will do it for that price.

[Boges]

A good example would be garbage collection here in Winnipeg.

There absolutely were growing pains when it was first contracted out. A private company doing a job that had always been public, it's to be expected that they might not be able to hit the ground running. But the contract reflected that probability, and included penalties for late or missed pickups. That meant that as the private company was ramping up to be able to do the job effectively, the cost to the city got less and less. So much so that, at one point private company was paying the city rather than the city paying it. That gave the private contractor some serious motivation to get more efficient and fix the problems so that they could actually get paid for the job.

Now, the collection is like clockwork. It's far more reliable than the city collection ever was.

The real bonus is, if the private company balks at what they're offered when the contract is up in 5 years, the city is allowed to see if anyone else will do it for that price.

Yeah but the Garbage Men don't make 6-figures, so that hurts to economy.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes I know... questioning the assumptions that are used to come up with a conclusion is the core pillar of critical thinking. That was my point.

I guess so, but some assumptions are accepted without question which leads me back to: are you questioning whether my assumptions are correct or not ?

And yes it IS extreme. We should be CONTRACTING IN. Not OUT. People are getting bilked by this trend we have seen over the last decade or two of privatization and contracting out. We are replacing good jobs in the economy with shitty ones, we are raising prices for consumers of services and reducing quality and access, and the investors in these firms are the only ones that win.

I assume a 'good job' is one that pays more than a 'sh*** job', period, in your mind. So giving a civil servant a 1% pay cut, and introducing them to a dynamic, well-managed workplace makes everything awful.

Of course, that's not the case and of course you didn't say that - but that's the direction that the conversation goes if we're going to just have the same discussion we've seen played out in the past.

Better jobs is the only reason you stated for contracting in. If we were to do that, how would we do things differently so that service levels, costs and so on would be easier to monitor/manage for the/a public.

I notice nobody touched the two examples from Ontario that I posted... That show how badly Ontarians have been hosed by contracting out IT and Medical diagnostics. Its cost hundreds of millions of dollars MORE than if it was contracted IN, and the level of services have gone down.

But if you want to pay MORE for LESS and replace good jobs with crappy ones, then I guess youre on the right track.

What are the IT and medical examples ? (can you provide a link?) Certainly Ontario saved some money by contracting out some services to CGI last year or so, when CGI had to hold the bag for the government's claimed non-delivery.

I think examining just one example would warrant its own thread, which I would find interesting.

[Argus]

I was a member of the BCGEU for about 16 years and I much prefer the non union position I have now. I'm not arguing for the elimination of Unions. I just can't understand why anyone would want to be in one.

Protection from arbitrary discipline? Increased salary and benefits?