My opinionated opinion of the garbage strike

[Moraff]

I noticed you stayed clear of the levy on union dues to pay for excesses on union contracts, as I thought you would

Probably because it is a silly idea.... The city doesn't have anything to do with the dues the members pay to their union other than to collect them and pass them on. They have no legal right to "put a levy" on them. That would be like someone going "I'll hire you for $x/hr but because I agreed to let you have 2 15 min breaks in addition to your 1/2 hour lunch break you have to pay me $y/pay". Doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

 

[JohnLarue]

Probably because it is a silly idea.... The city doesn't have anything to do with the dues the members pay to their union other than to collect them and pass them on. They have no legal right to "put a levy" on them. That would be like someone going "I'll hire you for $x/hr but because I agreed to let you have 2 15 min breaks in addition to your 1/2 hour lunch break you have to pay me $y/pay". Doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

It makes more sense than banking sick days for retirement twenty to thirty years down the road
"Sick days" are for when you get sick, not retirement planning

In addition the city does not have anything to do with the licensing of cars, yet they managed to put a levy on my registration this year. So why not applied a user levy to those that use the resource (cash)

I personally do not car what the city gives the collectors, however I do not want to pay for anything over market rates, so lets collect the excess from the unions.

The point I am trying to make is union excess should be paid for by unions, not the general public.
I am getting very tired of this group sticking its hands into the public purse, they will back off from ridiculous demands if they have to fund them

 

[Rockslinger]

If there's dissatisfaction on either side the contract is optioned out or allowed to lapse and tenders issued for a new contract with whomever. Apparently that can't happen. Why not?

This is the issue that really pisses me off. The fact that the City is not exercising its hard earned legal right to hire replacement workers and/or negotiating with other SP's. Why? It is because the mayor and his supporter in council are a bunch of commies. How did these jerks get elected? It is because toronto is full of LLL, socialists and commies who think that unions should rule the world.

 

[oldjones]

…edit… His managers and agents aren't forced to negotiate as it appears the city unions and management are. If there's dissatisfaction on either side the contract is optioned out or allowed to lapse and tenders issued for a new contract with whomever. Apparently that can't happen. Why not?

I don't see how anyone can force anyone else to negociate if they don't want to, although you can penalize them if they don't show up at a session. But negociating some sort of replacement deal—even a parting of the ways—almost always looks better to both sides than a force.

But if you meant the city was 'forced' to negociate a new contract because the old one expired and the workers refused to work without a new one or at least discussions toward that end, that seems reasonable to me. Wouldn't the alternative be 'forcing' the city's deal on the workers? No pay, no work seems about as equal pain/force/incentive for both sides as I can imagine.

As to the city's contract: There's labour law that defines how this stuff works. Eventually the employees and their union lose their 'right' to the jobs and as bargaining agent. But it takes time. However, as in most employment situations, that's a floor, and the expiring contract undoubtedly has further details about exactly what goes on between its expiry and any new contract if the old one's been allowed to lapse.

Like any other contract provisions, they were arrived at by agreement, with each side trying to do the best for itself. And I'd bet neither side saw wholesale replacement of the entire trained and experienced workforce as desireable.

 

[train]

This is the issue that really pisses me off. The fact that the City is not exercising its hard earned legal right to hire replacement workers and/or negotiating with other SP's. Why? It is because the mayor and his supporter in council are a bunch of commies. How did these jerks get elected? It is because toronto is full of LLL, socialists and commies who think that unions should rule the world.

If you think you saw ornery picketers before...... Replacemnent workers will result in violence from the goons that most unions have somewhere in the "brotherhood".

What we really need is a new law which levels the playing field for employee and union. After a period of time on strike ( pick a fair time but say 2 months) the union certification should be voided and the employer should be allowed to rehire anyone who applies and other unions should be allowed to vie for certification by campaigning with the employees.


That way the employees are not stuck with one union option and the union may be less inclined to bully their members all the time. After 3 weeks of strike (6% wage loss) the employees have already lost their demanded increase for this year and next year.

Unions should also be required to publish audited annual financial statements and profits should be taxable. Profits, yes profits - anyone who doesn't think unionism isn't big business is terminally naive. Why would they object to this if they have nothing to hide?

 

[blackrock13]

If you think you saw ornery picketers before...... Replacemnent workers will result in violence from the goons that most unions have somewhere in the "brotherhood".

What we really need is a new law which levels the playing field for employee and union. After a period of time on strike ( pick a fair time but say 2 months) the union certification should be voided and the employer should be allowed to rehire anyone who applies and other unions should be allowed to vie for certification by campaigning with the employees.


That way the employees are not stuck with one union option and the union may be less inclined to bully their members all the time. After 3 weeks of strike (6% wage loss) the employees have already lost their demanded increase for this year and next year.
.

Unions should also be required to publish audited annual financial statements and profits should be taxable. Profits, yes profits - anyone who doesn't think unionism isn't big business is terminally naive. Why would they object to this if they have nothing to hide?

Yes and No. How's that for an answer. On some things I agree and others not so.

The union doesn't have to be automatically decertified, but it would be nice to see the workers vote for it.

I don't think public scrutiny of union books is necessary. Most people's eyes would glaze over quickly. I know Unions have money and don't want to care about how much is too much. The big unions are big business as I've stated before. I don't need a spread to tell me that.

I've seen up close, what kind of violence can be generated. Not French or Korean crazed riots, but not far. Bringing in replacement workers to keep things running is a difficult decision but it's totally legal. The business has a right to operate. The last step for companies is to close up shop and move, as have been done many times.With this garbage strike, the customer can't go to someone else for the service and that's what makes it difficult to swallow on the part of us the residents.

 

[someone]

One thing I find interesting is the ideological breakdown of the posts in all the threads on the garbage strike. Normally, when it comes to current events, you almost always find people from middle of the road nonideological category fall on both sides of an issue. However, in this case, almost all the posters supporting the union are ideological leftwing types (e.g. OJ, options, MrBig, Yoga, etc.). These are not the voters that provincial governments really have to worry about. It is the middle of the road voters they have to worry about.
I think that the union is going to have to consider whether fighting this battle is worth the risk losing a war when it comes to new labour legislation, contracting out, etc. General middle of the road voters take many issues into account in deciding how to vote and it is too early to tell how important any one issue is going to be. However, it is starting to seem that the best thing for those that want a reform of labour laws/contracting out, would be a long strike followed by a union victory. Given that the only people on this board to support the union are ideological left wing types, the unions will be in trouble if the middle of the road starts to indicate that this issue is important enough to decide their votes.

 

[blackrock13]

SO, you had me with you until you said have long strike and then a union win That's cutting off a foot to cure a blister.

You're right about winning this battle but maybe losing the war. It's always the soft middle voters that carry the elections. The NDP generally hover around 13-16%, especially now with more than 3 mainstream parties on the scene. I can't remember who it was, but the day one the main players in the Labour movement said it was time to move over and not vote NDP, I almost fell down.

Right now the public are against the strike by at least 2 to 1, albeit a large portion of the public don't know/won't say. That's a real selling job ahead. The swing over to the contracting out is already well in hand. the score is 441 to 3.

 

[chiller_boy]

This is the issue that really pisses me off. The fact that the City is not exercising its hard earned legal right to hire replacement workers and/or negotiating with other SP's. Why? It is because the mayor and his supporter in council are a bunch of commies. How did these jerks get elected? It is because toronto is full of LLL, socialists and commies who think that unions should rule the world.

You of course have noted that Hudak, the new PC leader has said that Queens's Park should not legislate the Unions back to work. It's to early, he said. No discussion about hiring scabs, although its not really his call.

A real problem here is the absence of stakeholder values. It is not the City who pays the Union, it is the taxpayers. And they cannot afford tax increases to pay for benefits that they themselves have no chance of receiving. There has to be a sharing of tax dollars and services that will result in no one feeling that they are being ripped off. The city(representing the taxpayers) should make clear that they want the sick day benefit(as accrued vacation) rolled back - indeed terminated for new workers- and that they want pay increases limiteded to inflation and with what is affordable from taxes. And this has got to be an across the board change - all Unions get to particpate.

Now should this fail to impress, the City should sign no more than one year contracts and announce, in advance, that next year a strike will simply not be tolerated, and that two months in advance the city will begin by hiring (potential) replacement workers. A candidate who ran on this platform would be elected, I believe(assuming he/she is not an idiot), and it will eventually happen. Public benefits are causing crisises all over the US today.

 

[Mrbig1949]

If you ever intend to bring back the striking workers then replacement workers are the stupidest idea. Reagan never intended to see the PATCO workers again. The bitterness after the fact is just not worth it. Scabs also generate picket line violence and you can bet reenforcements from all the other unions will be brought in to beef up picket lines. It can result in a Korean like situation. All our present day laws, inspired mainly by MacKenzie King grew out of the more violent labour days of early and mid century. Scabs just take us back 60-70 years to our violent past.

 

[oldjones]

The best way to defang the union is simply to outlast the strikers who aren't getting any paycheques. That's hard on working parents with kids in daycare, builders and renovaters who can't get permits, or kids with a load of their incontinent dad's Depends™, but anybody who's so incompetent at adult life they can't manage their own ordinary refuse for a few weeks really has no business voting, let alone complaining.

Of course that just wins this strike, but doesn't change the system the rabidly self-righteous keep ranting about, but offer no receipe for repair. Which is why the system's the way it is. And just maybe their 'bright ideas'—if we ever see them— might prove in practice to be as flawed as yesterday's bright idea of banking sickdays.

 

[Yoga Face]

My original point has been lost somewhere and not answered


1 Rich reinvest their moola into what makes the most moola not what is socially good Capitalism will sell you the rope to hang itself with if they can make a profit from it

2 Moola makes more moola in a endless cycle until the rich own everything

3 The working man does not get into this cycle because he spends all he earns to survive

4 Our economics are controlled by greed is good philosophy of money changers that do no public good when they gamble on the ebb and flow of the market. The stock market is meant to put moola into the hands of entrepreneurs who create jobs not package the moola into worthless mortgage bundles that you can sell at a profit and that collapse and cause a world recession. The stock market needs serious reconstruction and regulations are a unfortunate part of this necessity

5 These serious flaws of capitalism that makes the rich get richer will doom capitalism and freedom when it implodes upon itself. Capitalism was nearly lost during the depression, for example


6 Unions, as flawed as they are, save capitalism and freedom by slowing down this rich getting richer cycle and the benefits they establish for themselves eventually bleed down to all workers


That the public adores air heads like Paris Hilton because she is rich is an indication of social brainwashing .

For the working man to adore the rich in some vicarious escape that they will never achieve and not adore the struggling single mom is beyond the pale of reason

 

[Yoga Face]

a 1 player says

Most of the money that they own is tied up in things that are not liquid, such as factories, machinery, and real estate. All of which employs other people. The reason that they are getting more wealthy is that they are getting a return on their investment, the same way you and I are. The 'rich' is not an entity, it is a group of individuals no different than you or I who have made some wise business choices, and who have worked hard and saved well.

My answer is

And this creates a cycle of the rich getting richer until they have far more than what their hard work earned. As to where their money is tied up those are numbers I would like to see A lot is spent on mansions and third world $1 a day labor that leaves Canadians unemployed The Auto crises is partly because so many Auto jobs have gone to Mexico

a 1 player says

If you can, please back this up. It might be true, but that would mean that 1% would all have several cars, washing machines, televisions, etc. If 1% owned 25%, it would mean that they should own 25 of each household good. I can't see this.

My answer is

Yes, I too, would like to see some definitive answers to this vital question

a 1 player says

Yes I do. It is MY money that is paying for those 18 sick days.

My answer is

I share your anger. It is mine too that pays for the sick days. This money should come from the 20% that have 80% of the money.

I swear if you lived in Medieval times you would have supported Nobilities right to own peasants. Seriously.

That is the social thought that was inculcated into the masses then the same way you have accepted the social thought of today that supports the rich


a 1 player says

This is just nonsense on so many levels. Money is exchanged for productive labor, and grown by investing in things that will produce a return on ones investment. As for the oil companies... Most are publicly owned, people choose to invest in them because they do give a good return. To most people, the returns they gain outweigh the exploitation they do, (if one can call providing jobs exploitation). If you don't like how they operate, don't invest in them. Many of the third world countries have not even gone through an industrial revolution yet.

My answer is

Oil companies support dictators that kill those who strive for democracy. They call this economic stability. When the oil is gone their legacy is a rich elite with the peasants left with oil soaked farm land. Oil is a curse to the vast majority of the third world peoples. Far to many of these jobs created in third world countries are unsafe and allow for only bare survival



a 1 player says

The truth is out there, but it is dependent upon the way you see it, and what your philosophies are. A capitalist sees the truth different than a socialist. You have shown which you are.



My answer is

Wrong. I believe in freedom and capitalism and see the need to address some serious flaws before we lose our freedom. I would prefer unfetterd capitalism and no unions but this idealism will not work. We nearly lost capitalism during the great depression

 

[train]

I don't think public scrutiny of union books is necessary. Most people's eyes would glaze over quickly. I know Unions have money and don't want to care about how much is too much. The big unions are big business as I've stated before. I don't need a spread to tell me that.

.

I'm curious as to why you don't think public scrutiny of union books is required. We effectively legislate the right for CUPE and other unions to "tax" over a million of their members with dues yet we don't give these same people a choice of not being a member if they want to work in a union shop. In the case of certain large unions, the Steelworkers, are an infamous example, there is also a distinct lack of financial visibility and accountability to there members.

Compare the lack of rules and protection for union members with the requirements of public companies to provide audited financial statements to their shareholders. We all know about the imperfection of public company financial reporting just imagine what goes on under the shrouds of darkness when it comes to union affairs.

Just my opinion but I think that anyone that has the unilateral right to effectively tax the public ( its members) should be held accountable for the use of the funds.

 

[buckwheat1]

The provincial doesn't want to order them back to work because their not sitting right now so there'd be big expense to bring thme all in for a few days to vote.
I heard on the weekend that for every year a counsellor is a counsellor he gets 1 month of salary for every year seared to a maximumof 12 months pay or 1 year, now that SUCKS. Now a term is 4 years and if elected to office 3 times and not the forth they'd walk today with about $96000 and your worried about sick days it takes 25 years to get up to 6 months not 12 years as a counseller which gets 100% after 12 years. I'd vote them all out and let teh city be run by ONE man or women

 

[buckwheat1]

easy to solve - grandfather the sick days and go back to work.

 

[Meister]

I can see how people get upset at the whole garbage thing. But, if I was a garbage worker I would try to squeeze the system as much as I could also. I mean why settle? It's the worker's money he can try to get as much as he can if he wishes. The risk he is running is that at some point the city will privatize it and he will be out of a job, but that is a risk that he should have the choice in making.

 

[train]

The best way to defang the union is simply to outlast the strikers who aren't getting any paycheques. .

Don't they get strike pay from the millions of dollars they pour into CUPE evey year ? Other than the law says they have to, why do the brotheren put up with such shoddy treatment from their masters?

 

[Rockslinger]

The risk he is running is that at some point the city will privatize it and he will be out of a job

This is not a risk with the present City administration.

Rock: Hello Mayor Miller. Why don't you hire replacemnet workers?
Miller: Because I am a commie and the union thugs will bash my head in.

Rock: Why don't you put garbage collection out for tender.
Miller: Because I am a commie and the union thugs will bash my head in.

 

[blackrock13]

This is not a risk with the present City administration.

Rock: Hello Mayor Miller. Why don't you hire replacemnet workers?
Miller: Because I am a commie and the union thugs will bash my head in.

Rock: Why don't you put garbage collection out for tender.
Miller: Because I am a commie and the union thugs will bash my head in.

LMAOROTF!!!!!!! but so true.