Longshoreman Strike

[explorerzip]

unions would cause a fight
why have these non-skilled workers not found a better paying job?
they are free agents able to resign at any time

Lots of reasons:

Not enough job openings at a competitor
Those better paying jobs might have a much longer commute
Worse benefits
Or they just like working at that company

These are all logical reasons for why people stick at a company.

if you are a business owner will you invest thousands $ to upgrade a part-time workers skills?
likely not

The essence of this dispute seems to be that that part-time workers don't think they have a pathway to become full-time. So they somehow got the wrong impression that they have a path to become full-time. It could be that the hiring managers are making promises that they can eventually become full-time when they don't really know. Or maybe the workers just have unrealistic expectations.

Absolutely not
union objectives are not aligned with the employers/ shareholders objectives
union leaders have zero skin in the game
union leaders assume no risk or responsibility for the success of the vison

As it stands now, you're right that the union objectives are not aligned with the employer's. Is it impossible to align those somehow?

what is there to think about?
that is a non-starter

Then what is a "starter" to you? These labour issues are long-standing and it seems that both sides are keeping to the same old lines and tactics. I'm just trying to think out of the box because the status quo isn't working.

 

[DinkleMouse]

The essence of this dispute seems to be that that part-time workers don't think they have a pathway to become full-time. So they somehow got the wrong impression that they have a path to become full-time. It could be that the hiring managers are making promises that they can eventually become full-time when they don't really know. Or maybe the workers just have unrealistic expectations.

Not to mention a lot of corporations use part-time positions to avoid paying benefits. While part-time works for many employees, a far greater number would rather be full time and get benefits.

As it stands now, you're right that the union objectives are not aligned with the employer's. Is it impossible to align those somehow?

Adam Smith actually addresses this himself, despite his works predating the trade Union. He was familiar with the Trade Guilds however, which in a way are precursors to Trade Unions. Despite being essentially a free market capitalist verging on the libertarian, which may have cut differently in his day and he may not have those same views today, he also strongly supported the rights and power of labour and wrote at length about the disproportionate power held by management and corporations. Why? Because the labour market has a major impact on the ability of business to exist and thrive and generate profits.

At the risk of making him sound like a socialist, to him it was a class struggle. With "the Masters" representing both executives and corporations, and "the labour" representing the workers. And in fact, he touched in the fact that we often only hear about "the labour" when things break down and "the Masters" often do a lot of shady shit in the background we don't hear about, so it's easy to blame workers for creating tension when there's not always accurate.

He was a big fan of finding a balance. So when people talk about workers not having a "right" to the profits, they're literally contradicting the father of capitalism who cautioned against being vehemently anti-labour before the labour movement was even a thing. He actually encourages "the labour" to organize because "the Masters" can organize and they can do it easier because there's less of them and they wield far more socio-economic power.

But Adam Smith wasn't advocating for socialism at all. He was advocating for balance. It's the same arguments he used vis a vis supply and demand. Which is why economists that suggest companies that have been making record profits amid soaring inflation should pay higher wages out of those profits also aren't socialists; they aren't advocating for "social ownership of the means of production", they're advocating for corporations contributing to the overall health of the economy and the well-being of the labour market. More better-paying jobs can equal a healthier labour market and a stronger economy provided it's done in balance.

Libertarian economics would lead to runaway poverty, which leads to an exodus of people, which leads to a collapsing society. The counter of that doesn't need to be full-blown socialism, though that would be the opposite of it. Neither I nor the people I quoted are advocating for socialism, they're advocating for balance, which is almost always the ideal in a "class struggle" as Adam Smith likened it. And yet despite putting it that way, Adam Smith also said that there are a great many times when the objectives of both classes are aligned, but that those are often overlooked.

The Masters want a healthy, thriving economy. Meeting the needs of labour encourages a healthy, thriving economy. Race to the bottom labour relations accomplishes the opposite of that. Workers want a safe workplace, the Masters would rather not pay compensation for injuries and would like insurance rates low. The list of places where the objectives align is actually far longer than the list where they diverge. And this should be clear to anyone that's ever been involved in contract negotiations.

People can think I'm an uneducated boob because I said I'm Unionized if they want to, thinking anyone with a brain would go into management, I don't really care what people think of me. But based on comments some have made I've clearly got more experience than them in these matters. They're more likely investors rather than business leaders, and selfishly think profits at the expense of the workers is great for them. Or they've only operating small businesses, which is admirable , hard work, and underappreciated, but certainly not the target of the labour movement or the focus of macroeconomics or big-picture capitalism. But even Adam Smith cautioned against the mentality of "profits at all costs".

From his writings, it seems clear to me that Adam Smith was a humanitarian who advocated balance in labour relations in order to create an environment for capital to thrive. He was not advocating for a corporate Utopia where companies wielded their power and a new feudal society emerged with the labour being little more than serfs.

You can find an okayish summary (given that it's a complex topic and it's hard to summarize) here:

Adam Smith on the Interests of Labor and Business | Adam Smith Works

March 24, 2021 According to Smith, to understand business economics we need to see that both labor and business should be recognized as classes, and that both pursue separate interests and agendas that sometimes conflict.

www.adamsmithworks.org

Though as always, I'd encourage people to read his works and interpret for themselves, with a heavy dose of analysis from both sides of the argument to help guide you to what you truly believe.

 

[JohnLarue]

Lots of reasons:

Not enough job openings at a competitor
Those better paying jobs might have a much longer commute
Worse benefits
Or they just like working at that company

These are all logical reasons for why people stick at a company.

actually they are all logical reasons not to strike

The essence of this dispute seems to be that that part-time workers don't think they have a pathway to become full-time. So they somehow got the wrong impression that they have a path to become full-time. It could be that the hiring managers are making promises that they can eventually become full-time when they don't really know. Or maybe the workers just have unrealistic expectations.

no it appears to be about money
Metro grocery workers strike through weekend after rejecting tentative deal - The Globe and Mail

About 3,700 grocery workers in the Greater Toronto Area set up picket lines outside Metro Inc. stores this weekend after rejecting a deal that the union’s president says didn’t adequately address wages and working conditions.

they had a deal the union recommended but the workers rejected

Ms. Bacon said that the two sides had reached a “mutually satisfactory agreement that they unanimously recommended to employees” last week. The four-year agreement proposed wage increases above inflation. She also said that part-time employees who want a full-time position have “opportunities.”

But workers were not satisfied with the agreement. Responding to an offer that included wage increases above inflation, Ms. Payne said workers have fallen further behind in their earnings over the last few years, while inflation has steadily increased. About 70 per cent of striking members work part-time.

The workers want “decent pay and decent work hours to be able to support themselves,” she said.

once again they are expecting the company to provide them with a standard of living
they are demanding pay increase for to cover inflation in year gone past
they rejected an offer in excess of inflation ( she might be quoting a very recent inflation number)
compensation is determined by the value added, not by employees spending wants / needs

As it stands now, you're right that the union objectives are not aligned with the employer's. Is it impossible to align those somehow?

not as long as the unions continue to view the relationship as adversarial
that is how union leaders justify their existence

Then what is a "starter" to you? These labour issues are long-standing and it seems that both sides are keeping to the same old lines and tactics. I'm just trying to think out of the box because the status quo isn't working.

i would bet a good chunk of coin, that Metro, Loblaws & Sobeys are all looking to increase the number of self -check out kiosks and all have looked at robotics stocking shelfs in the off hours.

the writing is on the wall for this lot of low skilled employees. their numbers will likely decrease rapidly
taking the adversarial position they have wont help

in a more co-operative relationship, management could work with labor to try and minimize the headcount reduction i.e training / skills upgrades to work in the bakery, meat department, a distribution warehouse maybe even the pharmacy, although that might be a much higher regulatory barrier to get over.

too bad the strikers said FU to the company, we want more $, give it to us or we shut you down

 

[JohnLarue]

So when people talk about workers not having a "right" to the profits, they're literally contradicting the father of capitalism

that is ridiculous

again , you fail to grasp the importance of property rights, ownership and equity

 

[JohnLarue]

I literally can't stop laughing while you huff and puff and call me names and accuse far-right wbackadoos of being socialists. I'm likely the opposite of outraged, but I think you're projecting.

ok ???

the opposite of outraged

so you are delighted you are been shown for the loonie left fool that you are ???
OK, if that is what cranks your tractor , I can accommodate you

What was it you said? "Anyone can propose a theory!"? This theory you're pushing has existed since the 60s, and despite wages actually outstripping inflation ever since, we've yet to see a single example of it causing hyperinflation. It's literally a debunked theory that no real economist believes. Even BoC and the Fed aren't taking about wage push spiral and hyperinflation. You're it, and I'm pretty sure you're not an economist.

That's because no-one @ BoC and the Fed is stupid enough to propose companies must immunize their workforce against inflation
wage push spiral and hyperinflation would defiantly become topical should your lunatics dream be seriously discussed

responsible central bankers keep a close watch on wage growth
the federal reserve even has a specific tracker

Wage Growth Tracker- Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (atlantafed.org)
The Atlanta Fed's Wage Growth Tracker is a measure of the nominal wage growth of individuals. It is constructed using microdata from the Current Population Survey (CPS), and is the median percent change in the hourly wage of individuals observed 12 months apart. Our measure is based on methodology developed by colleagues at the San Francisco Fed.

Lol That's not at all what I said. I quoted economists with PhDs saying it has minimal effect on inflation and actually can boost the economy when wages are increased to the lowest income earners.

wage growth impacts inflation , particularly in a service orientated economy

That's the most insane tangent I've ever heard. A better question is I used to mow lawns for $1.

that is not a question
Jesús

You're suggesting that's still what teenagers should get paid, or they've caused runaway hyperinflation. Pretty sure that hasn't happened. So what's the deal? Why hasn't your predication come true?

do not mis-represent me and do not avoid the question


please explain this in the context of ownership and property rights ?

• does the teenager person who cuts the grass and washes the windows of a rental property for an hourly rate also have a claim on rental profits ?

this question requires a yes or no response from you

I mean, you struggle with capitalization, punctuation, and spacing.

grow up

You clearly haven't written many essays in your life.

Too funny
I have had my work published

That was what I was pointing out as ironic. Flew right over your head,

Yeah I guess my thinking like an adult made me miss your childish irony

just like how you assumed I would only quote pro-Union socialists without realizing I was literally quoting the very far-right originators of the Great Barrington Declaration.

i do not give a rats ass who you quote, your position is loonie left socialist
only a loonie left would confuse himself into believing a special interest group with out any equity has a claim on corporate profits
you need to familiarize yourself with property rights and ownership, along with risk/ reward.

The hilarity. And you just keep going, delivering hits after hits.

yeah you keep on setting your self up to be hit

now answer the question put to you

• does the teenager person who cuts the grass and washes the windows of a rental property for an hourly rate also have a claim on rental profits ?

this question requires a yes or no response from you

 

[DinkleMouse]

That's because no-one @ BoC and the Fed is stupid enough to propose companies must immunize their workforce against inflation
wage push spiral and hyperinflation would defiantly become topical should your lunatics dream be seriously discussed

Over the past 10 years, inflation works out to about 23%. Wages have increased about 27%. Where was this hyperinflation you say this is doomed to cause? This goes back over 50 years. Wages have outstripped inflation. But you're saying wage increases equaling inflation will cause a wage push spiral, so where is it? It literally doesn't exist. It's a debunked theory.

responsible central bankers keep a close watch on wage growth

By all means, show me where I said they didn't. Responsible central bankers keep an eye on all facets of an economy. As do all true economists. You can't analyse or evaluate an economy without reviewing all aspects of it.

wage growth impacts inflation , particularly in a service orientated economy

It sure does. Go back and see where I even gave the degree to which it impacts it.

that is not a question
Jesús

I'm sorry if my question took more than one sentence and confused you. Too many words for you?

do not mis-represent me and do not avoid the question

Why not? You've ignored every question I've ever asked you and literally invented things you think I've claimed.

please explain this in the context of ownership and property rights ?

• does the teenager person who cuts the grass and washes the windows of a rental property for an hourly rate also have a claim on rental profits ?

this question requires a yes or no response from you

It "requires"? Be careful, your friends get angry when questions are asked and they'll accuse you of thinking you're God for making demands.

Too funny
I have had my work published

Sure you have. On your mother's fridge you mean?

Yeah I guess my thinking like an adult made me miss your childish irony

I've yet to see evidence of you actually thinking.

i do not give a rats ass who you quote, your position is loonie left socialist
only a loonie left would confuse himself into believing a special interest group with out any equity has a claim on corporate profits
you need to familiarize yourself with property rights and ownership, along with risk/ reward.

Yeah, me and Adam Smith both are loonie left socialists.

yeah you keep on setting your self up to be hit

Says the guy that says raising wages with inflation, like had happened for over 50 years, will cause hyperinflation even though it hasn't happened yet.

now answer the question put to you

• does the teenager person who cuts the grass and washes the windows of a rental property for an hourly rate also have a claim on rental profits ?

this question requires a yes or no response from you

Keep repeating it. When you go back and answer any one of the dozens of questions I've asked you over our various discussions, I'll consider it. Like where is this hyperinflation you've said we'll get it wages keep up with inflation even though they have for over 50 years.

It's like you live in an alternate reality, and I find it hilarious.

 

[JohnLarue]

Over the past 10 years, inflation works out to about 23%. Wages have increased about 27%. Where was this hyperinflation you say this is doomed to cause? This goes back over 50 years. Wages have outstripped inflation. But you're saying wage increases equaling inflation will cause a wage push spiral, so where is it? It literally doesn't exist. It's a debunked theory.

what a dope
we just had the worst bought of inflation in 40 years and you are asking where it is

By all means, show me where I said they didn't. Responsible central bankers keep an eye on all facets of an economy. As do all true economists. You can't analyse or evaluate an economy without reviewing all aspects of it.

the reason they watch it is because wage growth is a major driver of inflation

I'm sorry if my question took more than one sentence and confused you. Too many words for you?
Why not? You've ignored every question I've ever asked you and literally invented things you think I've claimed.
It "requires"? Be careful, your friends get angry when questions are asked and they'll accuse you of thinking you're God for making demands.

now answer the question put to you

• does the teenager person who cuts the grass and washes the windows of a rental property for an hourly rate also have a claim on rental profits ?

this question requires a yes or no response from you

Sure you have. On your mother's fridge you mean?

grow up

Yeah, me and Adam Smith both are loonie left socialists.

you are in your own little world

now answer the question put to you

• does the teenager person who cuts the grass and washes the windows of a rental property for an hourly rate also have a claim on rental profits ?

this question requires a yes or no response from you

it goes to the heart of the issue & you know it, but alas you are too chicken shit to answer.

now answer the question put to you

• does the teenager person who cuts the grass and washes the windows of a rental property for an hourly rate also have a claim on rental profits ?

this question requires a yes or no response from you

 

[DinkleMouse]

what a dope
we just had the worst bought of inflation in 40 years and you are asking where it is

So you think it's not the supply chain, or the war, or the pandemic that caused this inflation, it's the wage increases from 50+ years ago that have just appeared now? And everyone, including the Fed and BoC saying this is inflationary period was caused by increases in money supply, government spending, and prices, are all wrong? Both the Fed and BoC have said they want business to avoid giving big raises because this inflation has been stickier than they'd like, but neither has blamed it on wages. You're the only one making this claim. The inflation dates back more than 3 years, long before wages started going up. Basic economics says wages can't be the cause! Unless maybe the BoC and he Fed are Socialists too, along with me, Adam Smith, the head of ECB, the Chief Economist at the IMF, the head of the Japanese, French, German, and Dutch Central Banks, the AIER and the Cato institute?

it goes to the heart of the issue & you know it, but alas you are too chicken shit to answer.

Literally has nothing to do with the issue, it's a completely unrelated scenario. But you don't know it because you don't understand economics well enough to see the difference. You've made that abundantly clear. It's also not a "yes or no" question because your question lacks clarity. Are you saying the grass cutter is an employee and not a contractor? He's paid a wage, not piecemeal contract with work like most landscaping is done? What exactly is the nature of the job and what is the actual business who is paying him? I can't answer a nonsensical, incomplete question at all, let alone with "yes or no". And you say you're published? Like... A published model? Certainly not in a field that requires logic.

You can "require" anything you want of me, and you can keep pretending you're making good points, but you're not at all. All you've done is say you know more about economics than every economist on the planet and every central banker on he planet, because your latest claims about wages causing the current round of inflation are shared by no one.

You are hilarious. Your frustration and desperation literally oozes from your posts. When you're insulting the intelligence and knowledge of economics of people who are proven experts in he field work years of experience while you can't even come up with better insults than "mouse dick", you're clearly on tilt. All you've got is "loony socialism". You can't refute or rebut with facts, knowledge, a published paper, or even a quote from someone verifiable. All you have is you lashing out wildly because you're proven to actually not know what you're talking about. Again.

It's ok, John. You've built a reputation on inventing things, misrepresenting people and arguments, and illogical arguments and conclusions. You don't need to be so upset about being made to look foolish for accusing people of not understanding economics only to find out 18 of 20 central banks in the G20 and virtually every economic think tank that leans both right and left has the same understanding. Here's a hug. It'll all be ok. This is just an online forum afterall. It's not worth getting so worked up over!

 

[JohnLarue]

So you think ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

do not misrepresent me
stop telling me what i am thinking, you get it wrong all the time
it is your strange thinking which is under the microscope here

[Literally has nothing to do with the issue, it's a completely unrelated scenario.

it is very related
and clearly a question you do not want to answer

But you don't know it because you don't understand economics well enough to see the difference.

oh i understand the difference, sadly you do not or you are too chickenshit to answer

You've made that abundantly clear. It's also not a "yes or no" question because your question lacks clarity.

it is clear enough

does the person who cuts the grass and washes the windows of a rental property for an hourly rate also have a claim on rental profits ?
it is a very straightforward question he /she either does have a claim or does not have a claim ?
pick one

Are you saying the grass cutter is an employee and not a contractor?

irrelevant to a claim on rental profits

He's paid a wage, not piecemeal contract with work like most landscaping is done?

irrelevant to a claim on rental profits, however i did state many times " cuts the grass and washes the windows of a rental property for an hourly rate "
do you have a disability which inhibits your comprehension ?

What exactly is the nature of the job

what part of "cutting grass and washing the windows" is confusing you ?
please try to keep up

and what is the actual business who is paying him?

rental profits is clear enough to determine if the grass cutter has a claim on the rental profits


you asked sooo many useless questions in your pretend search for clarity, while omitting the only possible relevant question for 'clarity'

]I can't answer a nonsensical, incomplete question at all, let alone with "yes or no"

sure you can
it is very simple, he /she either has a claim on rental profits or does not have a claim on rental profits


now answer the question put to you

• does the teenager person who cuts the grass and washes the windows of a rental property for an hourly rate also have a claim on rental profits ?

this question requires a yes or no response from you[

 

[Darts]

Strike is over.

 

[JohnLarue]

Strike is over.

good

its a shame dick mouses ignorance will continue

 

[DinkleMouse]

do not misrepresent me
stop telling me what i am thinking, you get it wrong all the time
it is your strange thinking which is under the microscope here

Are you saying you don't think the current infusion is caused by wages? Because that's what I "accused" of you thinking, based on your saying that was the case. Feel free to clarify.

 

[DinkleMouse]

good

its a shame dick mouses ignorance will continue

When you bring me up not in reply to me, it just tells me I've got you so lathered up that I'm living rent free in your head.

 

[Not getting younger]

Metro made almost $850 million in profits last year. But they sell staple goods. People need these to survive and they gouged during a pandemic. My portfolio (and my pension's) is diversified enough that we don't rely on grocery stores gouging people on bread and milk to turn a profit.

Also, they increased profits almost 11% and it would cost less than 1% of profits to give them workers a decent raise. I'm pretty share the shareholders can manage with $840 million in profits rather than $850 million in profits.

Wage-push isn't a direct correlation. Multiple studies have found wage push has a minimal impact on inflation. Increasing the minimum wage, which affects for more people than 3700, showed that for every 10% increase in wages, you get 0.36% increase in inflation. Meaning giving 3700 workers 6.3% would be minimal. Any even if everyone got inflation, wage push would still be a smaller factor that profiteering and government spending.

DM,
There are numerous things to take into consideration. I’m not going to say you’re wrong, because corporate greed especially in Western society is a real thing. I’m not going to say your right, because there are soooo many other things to consider. “Profit” alone only tells a very small piece of

the bottom line.

I can’t/won’t get into specifics. One because, privacy is privacy. Two, because one of our largest shareholders and had a huge say in our profits was ( is) a very well known Pension fund. Three, because it’s been some years and my memory isn’t what it used to be.

We started with 250 million in capital ( other people’s money…our shareholders). Because we knew/how to bend tax law, utilize various things, and were able to use a lot of leverage. Our “profit” every year was in the tens of millions. There’s also retained earnings, capital at risk, return on investment and more…

If my book didn’t generate 20 basis points (1% of 1%) or 0.2%. in “profit” from the money I was risking ( in essence)….Nope…..

https://corpo.metro.ca/userfiles/file/PDF/Rapport-trimestriel/2023/2023-Second-Quarter-Results.pdf

 

[JohnLarue]

Are you saying you don't think the current infusion is caused by wages? Because that's what I "accused" of you thinking, based on your saying that was the case. Feel free to clarify.

once again
do not misrepresent me
stop telling me what i am thinking, you get it wrong all the time
it is your strange thinking which is under the microscope here


now answer the question put to you

• does the teenager person who cuts the grass and washes the windows of a rental property for an hourly rate also have a claim on rental profits ?

this question requires a yes or no response from you[

 

[JohnLarue]

When you bring me up not in reply to me, it just tells me I've got you so lathered up that I'm living rent free in your head.

it was you that unblocked me, so do not be confused about who is getting the free rent
speaking of rent

answer the question put to you

• does the teenager person who cuts the grass and washes the windows of a rental property for an hourly rate also have a claim on rental profits ?

this question requires a yes or no response from you[

 

[Darts]

DM,
There are numerous things to take into consideration. I’m not going to say you’re wrong, because corporate greed especially in Western society is a real thing. I’m not going to say your right, because there are soooo many other things to consider. “Profit” alone only tells a very small piece of

the bottom line.

I can’t/won’t get into specifics. One because, privacy is privacy. Two, because one of our largest shareholders and had a huge say in our profits was ( is) a very well known Pension fund. Three, because it’s been some years and my memory isn’t what it used to be.

We started with 250 million in capital ( other people’s money…our shareholders). Because we knew/how to bend tax law, utilize various things, and were able to use a lot of leverage. Our “profit” every year was in the tens of millions. There’s also retained earnings, capital at risk, return on investment and more…

If my book didn’t generate 20 basis points (1% of 1%) or 0.2%. in “profit” from the money I was risking ( in essence)….Nope…..

https://corpo.metro.ca/userfiles/file/PDF/Rapport-trimestriel/2023/2023-Second-Quarter-Results.pdf

Let's hope the Teachers pension plan is profitable. Otherwise, the taxpayers will be on the hook to fund their (teachers) Roll Royce pensions.

 

[Not getting younger]

Let's hope the Teachers pension plan is profitable. Otherwise, the taxpayers will be on the hook to fund their (teachers) Roll Royce pensions.

They aren’t the only plans with major stakes in companies.

 

[Darts]

They aren’t the only plans with major stakes in companies.

True. So, the unions have a vested interested in corporations doing well.

 

[Not getting younger]

True. So, the unions have a vested interested in corporations doing well.

Yep, some more than others, but every single pension is heavily invested in this, that and the other. Including CPP. Knowing which owned 25% of us…had a seat on the board…had a lot of say about profits, company direction, payroll, and bonuses……..(we paid quarterly based on profits)……”dividends” ( though we paid out differently and rather tax friendly ( bending)….

makes me laugh at some “things”.

Also remember very well a Liberal prime minister that would visit occasionally.