Guest Workers in Canada

[Renegade]

Examples of "unskilled and uneducated" employment that is union (or association, which has the same objective-setting wages and working conditions):

Doctors

Nurses

Police Officers

Fire personel

Paramedics

Teachers

University Profs

Engineers

Trades people

and the list goes on and on and on.

I would dispute that association is the same objective as a union. The vast majority of the examples you have pointed to are public service. Tell you anything?

[August1991]

There is alot of nonsense on this thread, due in part to the absence of any references to emprical evidence.

This link provides some data for the US.

The economic system we have today is a pyramid where the standard on living of the people at the top depends on masses of poor people providing cheap labour. Those of us living in rich countries are near the top of that pyramid and depend on the poor from the coffee pickers in Columbia to factory workers in China to provide us with cheap goods. If someone could wave a magic wand and eliminate global poverty then we would all find our standard of living would drop to a fraction of what it is today as the cost of goods sky rockets to pay the higher wages.

Riverview, that is unforgiveable example of zero-sum thinking. You should know better.

One person's rise in income need not come at the expense of another's - and in the case of Americans and Canadians, it doesn't. Trade is mutually beneficial and most of our high incomes come from the simple expedient of allowing ourselves to trade freely. If other countries had done as we, the world would be a far richer place.

[sideshow]

Examples of "unskilled and uneducated" employment that is union (or association, which has the same objective-setting wages and working conditions):

Doctors

Nurses

Police Officers

Fire personel

Paramedics

Teachers

University Profs

Engineers

Trades people

and the list goes on and on and on.

I would dispute that association is the same objective as a union. The vast majority of the examples you have pointed to are public service. Tell you anything?

What exactly do you dispute? Do you (and I am by no means meaning to belittle your experience or knowledge in this or any other matter) have any experience with a union and/or an association?

I merely speak from experience. I was a member of a union for years. And I was a union representative (not on staff) in many different positions for a decade. In the private sector. I am currently a member of a professional association (not a representative though) in the public sector. From my experience the objectives are the same. The legislation is different though, so this affects the union/associations ability to represent the membership. I am not saying positively or negatively, just different. The tactics used are different. But the objectives are in fact the same-to affect the members of the union/association in a positive way (read financial compensation and/or working conditions). We all want more for less.

As for the public service, what is your point? I truly do not understand. There is a higher rate of organized people in the public sector than the private-partially because it is harder for the government to replace these "skilled and educated" workers than it is for a private corporation to replace its workforce.

And the public workforce is generally considered "essential" compared to the general workforce. I can always wait to get my wigit-i cant wait for my doctor, police officer, paramedic, nurse, etc.

And if some had their way, these public workers would be private-and then you would start to see your police force, fire people, doctors, etc. go on strike-i dont think anyone wants that sort of thing.

[Renegade]

Really? How do you explain that our standard of living has been going up, despite the fact that union membership has been going down?

Can we see a report on that statistic first ?

How we measure Standard of living:

Standard of Living

The most frequently used formula to calculate the standard of living for a country is Gross Domestic Product per capita (per person).

link

Measured in US Dollars the GDP/capta has gone from $10,503 in 1960 to $25,496 in 1998. 14 Nations: Gross Domestic Product Per Capita

I don't have statistics for the union membership for Canada, but for the US:

Unions maintained their strength at around one-third of the labor force until about 1960. Union membership declined gradually, decreasing to about 25 percent of the labor force in the mid-1970s. The rate of decline was much sharper in the 1980s, and by the year 2000 private sector union membership had declined to less than 10 percent of the total.

link

[sideshow]

There is alot of nonsense on this thread, due in part to the absence of any references to emprical evidence.

This link provides some data for the US.

The economic system we have today is a pyramid where the standard on living of the people at the top depends on masses of poor people providing cheap labour. Those of us living in rich countries are near the top of that pyramid and depend on the poor from the coffee pickers in Columbia to factory workers in China to provide us with cheap goods. If someone could wave a magic wand and eliminate global poverty then we would all find our standard of living would drop to a fraction of what it is today as the cost of goods sky rockets to pay the higher wages.

Riverview, that is unforgiveable example of zero-sum thinking. You should know better.

One person's rise in income need not come at the expense of another's - and in the case of Americans and Canadians, it doesn't. Trade is mutually beneficial and most of our high incomes come from the simple expedient of allowing ourselves to trade freely. If other countries had done as we, the world would be a far richer place.

Put this into another perspective. Does that mean that if the entire world was one country and trade was unrestricted, we would all be as rich as bill gates? Who would we trade with to increase our wealth? Mars?

Before discovering the new world, was europe all "rich"? Our borders are imaginary lines. The ability of goods to flow through them is really of little consequence. If Canada were the ONLY country in the world, would we all live better or worse than we do?

Just some rhetorical (and idiotic maybe) thoughts to kick around.

[sideshow]

Really? How do you explain that our standard of living has been going up, despite the fact that union membership has been going down?

Can we see a report on that statistic first ?

How we measure Standard of living:

Standard of Living

The most frequently used formula to calculate the standard of living for a country is Gross Domestic Product per capita (per person).

link

Measured in US Dollars the GDP/capta has gone from $10,503 in 1960 to $25,496 in 1998. 14 Nations: Gross Domestic Product Per Capita

I don't have statistics for the union membership for Canada, but for the US:

Unions maintained their strength at around one-third of the labor force until about 1960. Union membership declined gradually, decreasing to about 25 percent of the labor force in the mid-1970s. The rate of decline was much sharper in the 1980s, and by the year 2000 private sector union membership had declined to less than 10 percent of the total.

link

as to your first link, it is a bit deceiving. it doesnt represent the true amount that each person has-it simply takes the gross wealth and divides by population. i dont know if a true, unbiased figure could be found-so many variables, and so many ways to look at the stats. suffice it to say, 50 years ago, a man (yes, a man, and no i am not sexist) could go to work and have his wife stay at home and raise 4 kids. one house, a car, and they had modest savings.

nowadays, both work, 2 kids-caveat being, everyone has a cottage, 2-3 cars, bigger home, 4 tvs, a computer, all kinds of fancy furniture, trips to mexico, etc.-and a whole lot more debt.

are our eyes bigger than our stomachs? when will rumplestiltskin come for our children?

2nd link was really good for those that dont understand such things.

[Renegade]

What exactly do you dispute? Do you (and I am by no means meaning to belittle your experience or knowledge in this or any other matter) have any experience with a union and/or an association?

I merely speak from experience. I was a member of a union for years. And I was a union representative (not on staff) in many different positions for a decade. In the private sector. I am currently a member of a professional association (not a representative though) in the public sector. From my experience the objectives are the same. The legislation is different though, so this affects the union/associations ability to represent the membership. I am not saying positively or negatively, just different. The tactics used are different. But the objectives are in fact the same-to affect the members of the union/association in a positive way (read financial compensation and/or working conditions). We all want more for less.

I am guilty of phrasing badly what I meant. I don't dispute that associations and unions both have an objective to better wages and working conditions. What I dispute is that you can group them in response to my previous post.

I didn't mean to imply that all unions are unions of unskilled and uneducated workers, but for those who are unskilled and uneducated, but nevertheless belong to a union, the union will provide some protection against job loss. The weakend power of the union means weakned protection for those who are unskilled and uneducated.

As for the public service, what is your point? I truly do not understand. There is a higher rate of organized people in the public sector than the private-partially because it is harder for the government to replace these "skilled and educated" workers than it is for a private corporation to replace its workforce.

And the public workforce is generally considered "essential" compared to the general workforce. I can always wait to get my wigit-i cant wait for my doctor, police officer, paramedic, nurse, etc.

And if some had their way, these public workers would be private-and then you would start to see your police force, fire people, doctors, etc. go on strike-i dont think anyone wants that sort of thing.

I don't believe that is the reason for higher unionization rates in public sector. I believe it is because simply the government lacks the will or motivation to stand up to unionization in the same way a private enterprise would. No doubt there would probably be some public service trades unionized, but the penetration is far higher in the public service. This leads to the taxpayer having to fund artifically higher wage rates for those in the public sector.

[Michael Hardner]

Measured in US Dollars the GDP/capta has gone from $10,503 in 1960 to $25,496 in 1998.

So the standard of living has gone up, but most individuals aren't making real gains.

[sideshow]

So what is your thinking on the reason for the higher unionization rate in the public vs. private sector?

My thoughts (and I have to confess, I did take some of this at university) on this are several.

The government lacks the will to fight the unions. The government simply cant win-so much of the voting population are public sector workers (or retirees from such). As well, people sympathize with these individuals (yes i know not everyone does, but the majority does). This is why teachers for example will wrap their demands (not passing judgement here) for higher wages with small classroom size-it gets public support.

These public occupations are necessary. The appeasement of the government comes like this. They give higher than average wages to public sector workers, public sector workers stay happy, and they pass legislation taking away right to strike, but no real backlash-because these workers know they are being paid better than other occupations. I mean a waiter can make more money (with tips) in cuba than a doctor, so why be a doctor when you can stay away from blood and guts and serve gin and tonic to hot american women.

supply and demand. you cant just bring in a temp agency if a doctor or teacher went out on strike. thus the government pays higher to these people.

and all of this is because divided, these workers know they can be crushed, but with a union and/or an association, they know that there is more safety-just like penguins at the edge of the berg.

[August1991]

Canada has some 13 million workers in the private sector of which about 20% are unionized and some 3 million workers in the public sector of which about 76% are unionized. In effect, unions benefit from the monopoly power of the state.

Link

[Renegade]

The economic system we have today is a pyramid where the standard on living of the people at the top depends on masses of poor people providing cheap labour. Those of us living in rich countries are near the top of that pyramid and depend on the poor from the coffee pickers in Columbia to factory workers in China to provide us with cheap goods. If someone could wave a magic wand and eliminate global poverty then we would all find our standard of living would drop to a fraction of what it is today as the cost of goods sky rockets to pay the higher wages.

This does not mean the system is inherently bad since the coffee picker in Columbia would be even worse off if he did not have a market for his product in rich countries. However, I think we have to be honest about what the system is.

Free trade in good and labour are simply way to geographically redistribute the pyramid so the masses of poor will no longer be found exclusively in poor countries nor will the minority of rich be confined to rich countries.

Yes this is exactly correct. We have created gains in our standard of living through free trade in goods, by the use of cheap labour in other countries. We can further extend gains by extending use of cheap labour domestically as there are many tasks the work for which, cannot be exported. Now this only works if the labour is in fact cheap. The pyramid doesn't work, if suddenly the imported labour is entitled to the high-wage and benefits the domestic population is used to.

I think we have no choice but to allow an underclass to be created in Canada - China and India have a huge pool of cheap labour that provide services that must be done locally. This, in turn, makes their professional workers much more competitive because they can afford to work for less than someone with the same skills living in a rich country. This means that Canada is at risk of losing both the low skilling and the high skilled jobs to these countries unless we reduce the cost of living in Canada. The only way to do that is allow guest workers which work for third world wages and are not entitled to the benefits of our social system.

I couldn't agree more. In my view, if we don't do so we will face a situation where countries which do employ guest workers as cheap labour, will make standard of living gains which will be far above ours.

I beleive that the massive tide of illegal immigration from Mexico in the US has helped the US economy deal with the threat from China and India even though law makers in the US would never admit this publically.

Many legislators in the US see the benefit of the cheap labour has had on the US economy. That is one reason for a push to move them to legitmate status. They face the same arguments about protecting the domestic labour force as has been expressed in this thread.

[Renegade]

Measured in US Dollars the GDP/capta has gone from $10,503 in 1960 to $25,496 in 1998.

So the standard of living has gone up, but most individuals aren't making real gains.

So maybe now you can show some stats to demonstrate what you mean?

[sideshow]

Canada has some 13 million workers in the private sector of which about 20% are unionized and some 3 million workers in the public sector of which about 76% are unionized. In effect, unions benefit from the monopoly power of the state.

Link

Hugo and I are one in thought until his last paragraph in that thread. thanks for the necromancy with that thread.

[Renegade]

The government lacks the will to fight the unions. The government simply cant win-so much of the voting population are public sector workers (or retirees from such). As well, people sympathize with these individuals (yes i know not everyone does, but the majority does). This is why teachers for example will wrap their demands (not passing judgement here) for higher wages with small classroom size-it gets public support.

These public occupations are necessary. The appeasement of the government comes like this. They give higher than average wages to public sector workers, public sector workers stay happy, and they pass legislation taking away right to strike, but no real backlash-because these workers know they are being paid better than other occupations. I mean a waiter can make more money (with tips) in cuba than a doctor, so why be a doctor when you can stay away from blood and guts and serve gin and tonic to hot american women.

For the most part I agree especially with the first reason you gave. It is precisely because governments lack the will to resist.

supply and demand. you cant just bring in a temp agency if a doctor or teacher went out on strike. thus the government pays higher to these people.

Yes, but for many, many of these, they are administrators and office workers and can in fact be easily replaced.

and all of this is because divided, these workers know they can be crushed, but with a union and/or an association, they know that there is more safety-just like penguins at the edge of the berg.

The "united we stand, devided we fall" argument is no different than for the private sector. Unfortunately the cost of being "united" is that individual talents and abilities become secondary to membership in the group with respect to gains from renumeration and benefits. I for one loath such a tradeoff.

[Michael Hardner]

So maybe now you can show some stats to demonstrate what you mean?

Brookings Institute Report

The results are summarized before. The overall improvement of the economy isn't disputed, only the benefits to different classes of wage earners.

[sideshow]

I think a lot of people simply dont understand the concept of unionization. Just because you are unionized, doesnt mean you cant be fired. It just means you cant be fired without just cause. Just because you are unionized doesnt mean your ability is not rewarded. There are generally some sort of "point" or "merit" system when ascertaining who is successfull in job bids in (especially) the professional fields. Seniority (i know some think it is a dirty word) is only a piece of the equation. One professional is easily replaced. A thousand are not.

Safety in numbers. Corporations, financial institutes, etc. all pool their respective "assets" to maximize their power. Why would workers, professional or otherwise be any different?

[Renegade]

I think a lot of people simply dont understand the concept of unionization. Just because you are unionized, doesnt mean you cant be fired. It just means you cant be fired without just cause. Just because you are unionized doesnt mean your ability is not rewarded. There are generally some sort of "point" or "merit" system when ascertaining who is successfull in job bids in (especially) the professional fields. Seniority (i know some think it is a dirty word) is only a piece of the equation. One professional is easily replaced. A thousand are not.

Safety in numbers. Corporations, financial institutes, etc. all pool their respective "assets" to maximize their power. Why would workers, professional or otherwise be any different?

It is not my intent to debate the benefits of unionization in this thread. People can unionize if they feel it is in their interest to do so. I don't feel it is in mine and feel I can more than adequately represent myself in negotiations with my employer without a union. In addition, I would rather rely on having a diffrentiated and not easly replaced skills as my form of job protection rather than resorting to saftey in numbers.

[sideshow]

A lion can be replaced. Or taken down by a pack of jackals.

But I guess we kind of got sidetracked on the thread topic.

Personally, I would allow guest workers. Provide with charter rights. Allow unionization. They break the law-get the boot. They lose their job-allow them an adequate time frame to find another. If they do not (notice i didnt say cannot)-get the boot.

Its just like any other organization-you offer the positions internally, and if there are no takers, you head hunt outside the company (or country as the case may be).

[Riverwind]

that is unforgiveable example of zero-sum thinking. You should know better.

One person's rise in income need not come at the expense of another's - and in the case of Americans and Canadians, it doesn't. Trade is mutually beneficial and most of our high incomes come from the simple expedient of allowing ourselves to trade freely. If other countries had done as we, the world would be a far richer place.

August,

We could quadrupal the income of everyone in the world but it would not change the reality that rich people can't be rich unless they have legions of poor people willing to provide services to them cheap. Over the last century trade and immigration laws have created a world where most of the wealth of the world in concentrated in a few rich countries. That is changing and no one can guarantee that the current unequal distribution of wealth will continue into the future. The standard of living in Canada will go down in one of two ways:

1) We allow our incomes to drop to the point where our industries can compete with countries with a lot of cheap labour.

2) We allow an underclass to develop which perserves the wealth of existing Canadians will cause the same average drop in labour costs.

The idea that we could continue to justify our high standard of living because we are more 'productive' is a myth. Technology transfer happens so fast to it is impossible to maintain a lead by simplying being more productive.

[Renegade]

Guest workers are not as farfetched as some would believe.

A G&M article appeared today on that subject:

Roll out the mat for Mexican 'guest workers'

By NEIL REYNOLDS

Wednesday, April 12, 2006, Page B2

OTTAWA --

Seven millions Americans were unemployed in March -- 4.7 per cent of the labour force, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics. Question: How many Americans would be unemployed without the 12 million illegal migrant workers in the country? Zero? The answer is elusive but Hispanic Americans (and most of the illegal workers are Hispanic) probably create more jobs than they fill. U.S.

Unless you have a subscription you wont get access to the full article: link