My opinionated opinion of the garbage strike
- Thread starter Yoga Face
- Start date
Their contract came up afew months ago, you paid no attention, they threatened job action and the city settled, for a better deal than has you so exercised now. Their pay and benefits are a far greater part of your precious taxes than the trash collectors. A tiny effort at conststancy would make your 'opinions' more persuasive.JohnLarue said:
Ya, but those terbozos that you refer to didn't actually follow through and do it. These numbnuts did. I don't for a second think they did with the blessing of the higher-ups. The leaders can't be expected to ride shotgun on all it's membership but my biggest point is Mr Steele is a picket captain and my suspicion is he may be shop steward as well.oldjones said:
No, not at all. Some people know far more than I about this tuff and express it so welloldjones said:
From 'Les Affaires', Frances version of 'The Economist'
Forced unionization harms the creations of jobs.
Even if the economy is in turmoil and even if the level of unemployment continues to shrink, Quebec still retains its title as one of the North American regions where the number without jobs stays elevated (relatively speaking).
Therefore, it'd be useful for the actual debate on the reforming of the labour code to take into account the impact that restrictions on unions have on the creation of jobs and the level of unemployment.
Canada is one of the few industrialized countries where the labour codes permit unions to impose uniformally in a business, noteably by forcing them to employ exclusively those workers who are a part of an established union (the Rand Formula obliges the employer to deduct a union membership at the source for all salaries of a unit of accreditation) or which adhere to an umbrella union (closed shop). These two formulas are the rage in Quebec.
But there's a different situaion in the US. In effect, 21 states have adopted - since the 1940s, laws called "right to work" which give employees the freedom to adhere to or not to adhere to a union representing the workers of an entity where there is a union.
Belonging to a union might engender direct benefits for the employee; nonetheless, other than the moral reserves that you can use to restrain a worker from adhering to the organization, these dispositions also have negative effects on jobs and long-term growth.
The statistics given by the US Bureau of Labour indicate in effect that the total growth rate of jobs was 73% in the US with Right-to-Work between 1977 and 1997, but that it was only 37% in the states under the closed-shop regime over the course of the same period. In the manufacturing sector only, the states with Right-to-Work benefitted from a growth in jobs of about 148%, while manufacturing jobs practically stagnated in other states.
As for the high-tech sector, from which everyone seems to try and profit, it's also in those states with right-to-work that this industry is the most developped: employment has augmented by 22% between 1989 and 1996, and comparatively, only 3% in those states which impose unions.
Of course, these facts don't prove that there's a cause-effect relationship which would definitively prove that the closed-shop method is fatal to the economy. The result of which this lets us glimpse depends in reality on the context of the global economy in these states themselves, where the work laws constitute one measure amongst many others. It would be imprudent to not take these facts into account.
The Rand Formula and the closed-shop clauses introduce an unwarranted rigidity in the labour market, in the measure where the unions which enjoy a monopoly at the bosom of business can exclude people without jobs who would be ready to work for a lesser salary than that stipulated by a collective convention. Unionized employees profit from this, but the others will increase the ranks of the unemployed.
In the same vein, the union monopoly can force salaries to new, higher levels than would be justified by real business productivity. In the context of intense competition, this signifies the higher costs in your workforce, a reduction of competitivity losses of contracts and, eventually, layoffs. On a longer term, even unionized jobs are vulnerable.
Other facts confirm that the right to work collectively profits workers. According to Professor James T. Bennett, of George Mason University in Virginia, the family purchasing power after taxes was, in 1993, $2,852 higher in states with right-to-work than in those without.
This situation does not leave American investers and entrepreneurs indifferent. These people, according to surveys, almost always prefer to establish in states where unionization is not obligatory, a criteria which passes before the fiscal burden.
It is therefore not a coincidence if Quebec conjugates its high unemployment level with one of the highest forced unionization rates on the continent. It's when the demand of the workforce is strong that workers and those who are looking for jobs win the most.
And the best fashion to achieve this is to assure the flexibility of work and to permit businesses to increase their productivity insteadof artificially protecting a single portion of the workers.
---------------------------
I know it's a long, but you asked. I can cut and paste but usually like to us my own words, yet this couldn't be passed by without relaying to you.
Yes, and?buckwheat1 said:
And and and??
WTF does that have to do with the current labour movement, which is filled with dinosaur carcases clutching their bum legs and OldJones-ing for their 18th smoke?
I really don't understand why people argue for faded glory when something is well past its prime. Power corrupts absolutely, it's only a matter of time, and no person or group is immune to it, even if they're singing Kumbaya. The labour movement is aggressive, bitchy and foul because they know that most people would love to have the kind of security they do. Protected employment for menial jobs is a fucking GIFT in 2009. A GIFT.
The people who built the union movement are not the people that exist in unions in 2009. C'mon, who's kidding who. The world has changed, the nature of work has changed and the notion of protected turf has gone bye-bye in the global economy. Get real, get current.
If all those union idiots had to actually go out in 2009 and get a real fucking job, one where they actually had to perform every day or get fired, most of them would crumble under the pressure. This explains much of their defensiveness. No competition, no incentive makes people very unhappy and lazy. These are facts of human nature.
I had a lot of sympathy for the workers at The Don Jail when they went out and protested because of the abuse they experienced in their daily jobs. Tough job, we should protect them. But garbage workers doing a stupid, no-nothing job complaining about their sick days which they can bank? Fuck me. The public is supposed to be sympathetic to that?
Be happy with your inflated pay and cushy union job. The basic rule of Capitalism is skill makes more. What skill does it take to pick up garbage?
A final thought which will no doubt annoy the shit out of union defenders: The minute I felt that there was something worthy of public sympathy on the line, like horrible working conditions, slave wages, abuse, etc., I'd support the strike in a heartbeat. But there's nothing like that on the line here and most people would agree with me. The union's purpose to get more more more and it's our job to call BULLSHIT.
I know one union CEO who left his job recently went on to make much more as head of a large financial corperation so they can work in the real world and many otheres could as well jsut like in the real world there are good workers and bad workers both in unionized and non unionized work enviroments.
of course, many could get jobs in the private sector. The union just has more benefits and protection from the 1950's style of management EG: if you don't like it leave. I like my 24 sick days. Were in teh mess were in today because of private sector jobs Banks and Insurance companies in the USA is where it started, corperate greed.
buckwheat1 said:
I am the first to say in most situations, Insurance companies are nothing more than power hungry, blood sucking, invasive scum lappers but please don't throw Canadian banks in the same pot as the US version.
I've said it often but it fits ......................... apples and oranges.
buckwheat1 said:
I wonder how many corporate CEOs you've actual spent time with. I'll give you the benefit and say only very few.
Greed is not the common thread in their profile, but driven, focused, articulate, and verging on workaholic with 60-80 hour work weeks the norm. I know 3 of these 'greedy' people that 'gave away' 80- 90% of their wealth to charity. These people could not be considered greedy people. Yes they still live quite well on what they kept, but they gave away millions. It sure sounds greedy to me.
I'll bet you have GREED written 100s of time on your tv room wall.
I assume your are referring to my post. It depends on whether or not you are looking at the long term. Years ago (I don’t want work out exactly how long ago for fear of being reminded of my age), there as a major beer strike in Ontario (technically a lockout). Prior to that, the then Big 3 and their unions had the government wrapped about their little fingers when it came to regulations preventing competition from microbreweries and others. It was in large part due to the public getting pissed off from that strike that the regulations where changed allowing greater competition from microbreweries and others. As I beer drinker, I benefited greatly from that strike in the long run. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes a “crisis” (a beer strike is definitely a crisis in my mind!) to get improvements. The fact is that elections are fought over many different issues and a particular issue often will never make it to the top of the list until there is a “crisis”.blackrock13 said:
I will just add to that I think the political environment has been changing over the years. As part of my job, I am in weekly contact with young people. 20 years ago, they were easily sucked in by ideological arguments that defied common sense. Now, despite all the negative things I could say about how they are different (and there are many things I could say) one positive is that they are less likely to be ideologically rigid in their thinking. I find that this is not only true when it comes to politics but also other issues (just look at the growing numbers that are not religious). They are more open to looking at the facts of a particular case rather than forming their opinion based on what they are told. I bet if we knew the ages of the strong union supporters here, we would find few, if any, under 50 and likely none (maybe one) under 40. It is far too early to know whether this might be a top election issue. However, it if does become one, I think that the fact that very few posters (who may or may not be representative of union supporters in the population at large) who are to not on the left wing fridges (e.g. NDP and left of NDP) support the union, should give the union cause for concern. Today, when one’s supporters are limited to those that make biblical references to money changers, a cause is in trouble.blackrock13 said:
SO, I like your post.
Even the NDP has morphed more to the middle. Some political observers have a hard time describing Nova Scotia's new NDP government as a typical NDP. As pointed out by me previously, even Labour union higher ups are suggesting voting for someone else than the NDP. I think it was Buzz, Not one of my favorite people, but he's no dummy. Then there's Sid Ryan. He's another tale.
Moving away from the NDP, is not turning your back on socialism. All the major parties in Canada have a socialist aspect. It's just some more so than other.
Even the NDP has morphed more to the middle. Some political observers have a hard time describing Nova Scotia's new NDP government as a typical NDP. As pointed out by me previously, even Labour union higher ups are suggesting voting for someone else than the NDP. I think it was Buzz, Not one of my favorite people, but he's no dummy. Then there's Sid Ryan. He's another tale.
Moving away from the NDP, is not turning your back on socialism. All the major parties in Canada have a socialist aspect. It's just some more so than other.
Without the private sector that you hate so much, there wouldn't be any public sector jobs. Do you seriously think unions create wealth and jobs? Do you think you would have a job with 24 sick days if not for the private sector?buckwheat1 said:
blackrock13 said:
Of course states that , in effect, do not allow unions will attract more employers. The solution is all states must allow unions with power. This same rationale carries throughout the world labor market. All countries must allow unions or that is where the factories will go as they seek cheap labor.
This is news?
The states that offer the right-to-work status are not saying no to unions. They can exist side by side with non-union shops. It's just that these states take away the closed-shop regime that exits elsewhere. It's the blending of the marketplace that makes these states more attractive and more successful.Big Rig said:
More attractive? A union without a closed shop is a begging institution. These states with so called RTW laws are economic basket cases. Also, ever notice that the states with strong closed shop teachers' unions have the best test scores where the states with weak or non-existant teacher unions are educational basket cases. If you pay peanuts you get monkeys. UNION=QUALITY .
