My opinionated opinion of the garbage strike

[Big Rig]

I get 24 (sick days)

What does "sick day" mean ?

You get paid for the first 24 days you are sick then get nothing ?

How much money do you get per day ?

What if you get the flu that is going around and are sick for longer than 24 days ? Do you have a separate insurance for that ?

 

[fuji]

I have an unlimited number of sick days. My employer will pay me my salary for the first 120 days that I'm sick, if I'm still sick after that I shift to long-term disability and receive 75% of my pay until I'm well, or for the rest of my life if I never get well.

My employer has the right to ask me for a doctors note to verify that I am really sick, and while I have never been asked for one, that's probably because I've never been out sick longer than a couple of days. I assume if I was out for a few weeks they would ask.

I cannot bank or carry-over or cash out these days.

We do not have a pension plan where I work but I if I contribute to an RRSP my employer will match my contributions up to 6% of my salary (so 12% invested, 6% from them). I can also invest up to 10% of my salary in the company stock outside an RRSP and the company will throw in another 25% on top of whatever I invest.

If I go to University for a degree that is in any way related ot my job the company will pay all the tuition costs providing I maintain a B average, though they expect me to do it on my own time (evenings and weekends) or take unpaid time off (they will give me unpaid time off for this if I ask.)

I get four weeks vacation a year, having worked here for four years.

I am not unionized.

 

[Big Rig]

I have an unlimited number of sick days. My employer will pay me my salary for the first 120 days that I'm sick, if I'm still sick after that I shift to long-term disability and receive 75% of my pay until I'm well, or for the rest of my life if I never get well.

My employer has the right to ask me for a doctors note to verify that I am really sick, and while I have never been asked for one, that's probably because I've never been out sick longer than a couple of days. I assume if I was out for a few weeks they would ask.

I cannot bank or carry-over or cash out these days.

We do not have a pension plan where I work but I if I contribute to an RRSP my employer will match my contributions up to 6% of my salary (so 12% invested, 6% from them). I can also invest up to 10% of my salary in the company stock outside an RRSP and the company will throw in another 25% on top of whatever I invest.

If I go to University for a degree that is in any way related ot my job the company will pay all the tuition costs providing I maintain a B average, though they expect me to do it on my own time (evenings and weekends) or take unpaid time off (they will give me unpaid time off for this if I ask.)

I get four weeks vacation a year, having worked here for four years.

I am not unionized.

You likely get these benefits because of the competition from unions. If your employer did not give them to you you have the right to organize and they are trying to stop that by matching the unions.

So what do you mean you get 24 sick days? You have just stated they are unlimited and if you are not sick you do not get to cash out the 24 "sick days"
so what does "sick day" mean?

 

[blackrock13]

Fuji;

Sound s like a good/reasonable deal that everyone can be happy and not break the bank (no pun intended).

I'm tired of hearing about Air Canada's woes. They do nothing but bitch about not making money. Their head is up their ass and their business model is so wrong. They declared bankruptcy, go toff the hook and the first thing they did was repaint their planes and make everyone buy new uniforms, saying it would improve service. it's not alway the workers that have brain cramps. Meanwhile Westjet chug along making money using a totally different model with one major difference being that they give the employees a chunk of the profits; their shareholders, capitalist owners and it WORKS.

I could be wrong but there's not a union in sight.

 

[blackrock13]

You likely get these benefits because of the competition from unions. If your employer did not give them to you you have the right to organize and they are trying to stop that by matching the unions.

I'm think that fuji and friends are part of that 70%+, or is it 77%, that might not want anything to do with unions. Some people can get a really good compensation package based on something you might not accept. MERIT.

Nothing is worse than being told to stay home and call in sick, so that a more senior staffer can take your hours and get overtime. I've seen that done so times in a union shop that I can't give you a number. It's a union scam almost as old as unions themselves.

 

[Big Rig]

Nothing is worse than being told to stay home and call in sick, so that a more senior staffer can take your hours and get overtime. I've seen that done so times in a union shop that I can't give you a number. It's a union scam almost as old as unions themselves.

I agree that unions have a down side esp the attitude of some of the goofs in them.

And yes, one should be paid on merit not on seniority.

And it would be nice if they were not needed

But I do believe that unions have elevated all the working class


Anyways, what does " sick day" mean in Fuji's case?

 

[JohnLarue]

But I do believe that unions have elevated all the working class
QUOTE]


Wrong again
Most people are compensated based upon merit.

What your lot has done is raise the cost of living for all by forcing organizations to pay a premiumn over and above market value.
Any excess is passed onto the consumer

Good example is $72/hr all in for a assembly line worker in an auto plant
NO chance in hell that excess was not reflected in the price of a new car

These excessive # of sick day for public employees. SOMEONE has to pay for them & it is the consumer through higher taxes or rent.

Your absolutely delusional if deny unions do not affect inflation
Thanks so much for that little gift that keeps on giving

 

[fuji]

You likely get these benefits because of the competition from unions.

Wrong. There are effectively no unionized shops in my industry whatsoever, furthermore, I would expect to get that level of benefits if I transferred and did what I do in any other country in the world.

I get those benefits because I, and everyone that I work with, am a "knowledge worker", the skills and knowledge I have are rare and valuable worldwide and I can demand a good income and good benefits when I go looking for a job.

When I say rare and valuable I don't mean one in a million or something, I just mean that it took significant education, training, and experience to become what I am, and you can't just walk down the street and find someone eles who could do it--they would need years and years of education and training to replace me.

Supply and demand takes care of the rest.

If your employer did not give them to you you have the right to organize and they are trying to stop that by matching the unions.

Why bother? I could walk down the street to any of our non-unionized competitors and they would all be happy to hire me on doing what I do with a similar salary and similar level of benefits.

My point here is that in Canada if we raised salaries by turning out more people like me we would have SUSTAINABLE high salaries, salaries that couldn't be lowered significantly by moving the business to another country.

To wit, there are people doing what I do in other countries, like China, and while they are paid lower, I worked out that their cost of living are so much lower that they probably save about the same amount I do every month, after tax. So if my company wanted to move all our jobs to China, I could likely move there and carry on with a similar quality of life and the same savings in the bank--and probably similar benefits too.

In my industry unions are not NECESSARY because the skills and education I have provide me with all the bargaining power I need to win a good deal and a good salary.

So what do you mean you get 24 sick days? You have just stated they are unlimited and if you are not sick you do not get to cash out the 24 "sick days"
so what does "sick day" mean?

Someone else said they got 24, I get an unlimited number. That person who gets the inferior number of sick days works for a union shop apparently, unlike me.

 

[WhaWhaWha]

...No unionized shops in my industry whatsoever, ... I expect to get that level of benefits if I transferred and did what I do in any other country in the world.
...I am a "knowledge worker", the skills and knowledge I have are rare and valuable worldwide and I can demand a good income and good benefits
...it took significant education, training, and experience to become what I am, and you can't just walk down the street and find someone eles who could do it--they would need years and years of education and training to replace me.
...I could walk down the street to any of our non-unionized competitors and they would all be happy to hire me on doing what I do with a similar salary and similar level of benefits.
...in Canada if we raised salaries by turning out more people like me we would have SUSTAINABLE high salaries,
...there are people doing what I do in other countries, ...I could likely move ... and carry on with a similar quality of life and the same savings in the bank--and probably similar benefits too.
...In my industry unions are not NECESSARY because the skills and education I have provide me with all the bargaining power I need to win a good deal and a good salary.
...Someone else said they got 24 [sick days], I get an unlimited number.

So how long have you been a pimp Fuji?

 

[blackrock13]

So how long have you been a pimp Fuji?

Joke?

 

[fuji]

So how long have you been a pimp Fuji?

LOL. I didn't know pimps were highly educated people with years of experience and training, but I am willing to be corrected.

 

[buckwheat1]

sick days

LOL. I didn't know pimps were highly educated people with years of experience and training, but I am willing to be corrected.

Yes I get 24 sick days a year and I an carry them forward I have 350 on the books now once I get to 120 days of being sick I can eitehr use up more sick days or go on LTD whic is I believe about 65% less taxes. If I still have sick time remaining on the books when I leave I can get percentage of them up to
6 months pay but it would take 25 years to get that. I also get 3 lieu or ersonaal days no questions asked. I now get 6 weeks vacation. If I'm sick and my employer wants a doctors note they pay the doctors price usually $25 -$35.
An employeer gets to know who abuses it or not.

 

[oldjones]

Isn't the more relevant question how many sickdays (or other similar allowance) should be part of everyone's deal, not just of yours, or of city workers? Your deal sounds quite sweet fuji, but I'm pretty sure you aren't proposing it as a universal. And surely if we're arguing what's fair and reasonable in the way of sick leave, we're circling around what should be universal—expected as the decent norm by both employer and employee.

 

[blackrock13]

Isn't the more relevant question how many sickdays (or other similar allowance) should be part of everyone's deal, not just of yours, or of city workers? Your deal sounds quite sweet fuji, but I'm pretty sure you aren't proposing it as a universal. And surely if we're arguing what's fair and reasonable in the way of sick leave, we're circling around what should be universal—expected as the decent norm by both employer and employee.

What's fair and reasonable is what a person's willing to accept.

A lot of people aren't stuck in dead end unskilled jobs that may carry social stigmas.

So the fact that the pay package that the strikers get, puts them in the top 20% of wage earners in this province/country, as stated and not challenged in an earlier post ( so it must be true), is fair?

 

[fuji]

Your deal sounds quite sweet fuji, but I'm pretty sure you aren't proposing it as a universal.

Absolutely the reverse.

I was just pointing out that you can get reasonable wages and benefits without a union or even a unionized competitor. All you need are skills and education.

That is what we should be striving for: More skills and more education for more Ontarians so that they get better wages and benefits naturally as a result of global competition for their services.

This doesn't necessarily mean everyoone has to become a "knowledge worker", I would point out that when I hire a plumber to fix up the pipes in my home he charges me a pretty penny. I pay not because he has some union representing him, but because that is the going rate for plumbers in the labour market, he's got valuable skills and I have to pay for them.

Right now unions are fighting a losing battle of trying to hold up unsustainably high wages against global competition. If you think global competition is a threat to your wage you are problably overpaid. The solution is not unions and trade barriers to keep reality out. The solution is to switch Ontario to an economy that is sustainable in the global market.

As for what is fair--

If we want a minimum standard for everyone then labour negotiations with the City or any other employer is the wrong venue. The right venue is the Ontario provincial election as you are disucssing he Employment Standards Act.

Right now I believe the minimum is five days.

 

[Yoga Face]

All you need are skills and education.

I started this thread and I have learned and I thank you for your effort. I am here to learn not argue.

And I have never argued the unskilled should be paid the same as the skilled but that all workers are not getting their labor value back from society because a disproportional amount goes to the elite. That argument has not been refuted nor can it.

But -there is always a retort is there not? - you and Larue and others base your whole argument on you being paid well because you have skills and do not need unions which is great now here is the big but

What happens when there are more skilled employees than jobs ?

The laws of capitalism will force, even if they do not want to, employees to lower your wage will they not ?

Do you believe there will always be an unlimited market for the skilled therefore never more a need for unions? If so, where is the historical precedent for this?

I find it hard to believe the computer age has redefined the laws and dynamics of capitalism which has shown that unions are needed. If they were not historically required they would have not happened.

 

[someone]

I started this thread and I have learned and I thank you for your effort. I am here to learn not argue.

And I have never argued the unskilled should be paid the same as the skilled but that all workers are not getting their labor value back from society because a disproportional amount goes to the elite. That argument has not been refuted nor can it.

Actually, it is pretty easy to refute. In competitive labour markets, the wage rate for a given type of labour is equal to the value of its marginal product (i.e. its contribution to a firms revenue at the margin). Whether or not you think it is fair that the value of the marginal product of some workers is greater than that of other workers is a different question.

 

[blackrock13]

I started this thread and I have learned and I thank you for your effort. I am here to learn not argue.

And I have never argued the unskilled should be paid the same as the skilled but that all workers are not getting their labor value back from society because a disproportional amount goes to the elite. That argument has not been refuted nor can it.

But -there is always a retort is there not? - you and Larue and others base your whole argument on you being paid well because you have skills and do not need unions which is great now here is the big but

What happens when there are more skilled employees than jobs ?

The laws of capitalism will force, even if they do not want to, employees to lower your wage will they not ?

Do you believe there will always be an unlimited market for the skilled therefore never more a need for unions? If so, where is the historical precedent for this?

I find it hard to believe the computer age has redefined the laws and dynamics of capitalism which has shown that unions are needed. I they were not historically required they would have not happened.

It doesn't matter, skilled, unskilled, union non-union, when there's few jobs, all lose.

 

[Yoga Face]

Actually, it is pretty easy to refute. In competitive labor markets, the wage rate for a given type of labor is equal to the value of its marginal product (i.e. its contribution to a firms revenue at the margin). Whether or not you think it is fair that the value of the marginal product of some workers is greater than that of other workers is a different question.

Unequal wages between trades was not what I meant.

There are super rich elite - whose power runs this country more than the power of the vote does IMHO - because money makes money which makes more money. The working man cannot ride this gravy train because he spends all his money on survival.

The only defensible argument is that someone had earned an original large capital by creating social value and that it has been passed down so all is fair.

I do not accept this as a justification for this great inequity of capitalism

 

[fuji]

because a disproportional amount goes to the elite. That argument has not been refuted nor can it.

Someone has refuted it in economic terms. I agree with you that it cannot be "refuted" because the way you have stated it, it appears to be a pure matter of faith and ideology, not grounded in any way in economics.

If you are a communist you believe our system is disproportionate becuase not everybody gets the same. If you are a socialist you may or may not like our system depending on where you sit in the spectrum. If you are a full blown laissez-faire capitalist you probably believe our system is disproportionate because the poor get too large a share of the wealth (i.e, unearned, undeserved welfare).

So I am not sure what you are trying to pull. Are you trying to assert that your ideology is right and everybody else is wrong? Or did you actually think that you had made some sort of rational economic claim? (You haven't.)

What happens when there are more skilled employees than jobs ?

That's like asking what will happen when the sky falls. It's as nonsensical as thinking the sky is made of something that can fall. Literally.

There is not some finite number of jobs to go around. The total amount of stuff we have to divide up between people, by whatever proportion your ideology says is good, depends on the total amount of stuff we produce collectively.

If you have someone standing around doing nothing you can produce a bit more stuff by having them do something. That increases the total amount of stuff produced, and therefore, everybody can be made better off without anybody being made worse off by putting that unemployed fellow to work.

How much of a share that unemployed fellow should get of the stuff produced is a different, ideological question. In our system his wage is set by supply and demand--there is a certain amount of profit to be earned by having him produce that extra stuff, and he will get a share of it.

That's the long answer.

Short answer is, never going to happen.

The laws of capitalism will force, even if they do not want to, employees to lower your wage will they not ?

A slightly different statement is correct, you're kind of close. If you increase the number of people who have my skills, or lower the demand for my skills, then yes, my wage will drop.

In that case if I'm smart I'll go try and learn new, different skills that are in better demand.

If your claim is that there is some finite limit on demand, that we will reach a day when everybody has every single thing they want, and nobody wants any more--well, don't hold your breath. There will ALWAYS be something that people don't have that they want, and therefore a job for someone who can produce it.

Do you believe there will always be an unlimited market for the skilled therefore never more a need for unions? If so, where is the historical precedent for this?

I'm not sure how to respond to that, because I see the current world economy, and the entire history of the world up to this moment, as a precedent for this. It has never, ever been any other way.