Toronto Garbage Strike Poll......

[fuji]

well to say now your going to meet in oct/nov when you starting meting in June in Bargining in bad faith cannot be done.

Wrong. The city has made the union an offer, and the city is giving the union four months to contemplate it. The city has no plans to change the offer, and therefore there is no point in showing up to the negotiations.

Parties walk out of these negotiations ALL THE TIME.

In this case the city is walking out while leaving an offer on the table, and making the city clerk available should the union choose to sign it and return to work.

Knowone ever publishs the full test/offer in the press. If mailed to every employee 30000 plus you'd all scream postage costs to much.

Yes, but for an offer that is going to be on the table for three or four months, and facing a union that plainly lied to its membership about what the city was offering, I think it's important for the city to bypass the union reps and go straight to the workers.

 

[someone]

Wrong. The city has made the union an offer, and the city is giving the union four months to contemplate it. The city has no plans to change the offer, and therefore there is no point in showing up to the negotiations.

Parties walk out of these negotiations ALL THE TIME.

It has been a long long long time since I studied any of this stuff. However, I do recall that labour relation boards had ruled that continually saying no to the other side could be ruled bad faith bargaining. I don’t know if just saying no for four months would qualify as bad faith bargaining. However, the rulings and logic do not necessarily go together so I would not be surprised.

 

[fuji]

I don*t know if just saying no for four months would qualify as bad faith bargaining. However, the rulings and logic do not necessarily go together so I would not be surprised.

Well, I think the city is required to re-open negotiations if the union indicates it is willing to concede on key points. Otherwise there is no point in showing up and it is only fair to the union's members that the city signal pretty clearly that it is not interested in negotiations until the union is willing to concede on those points.

The phrase "obviously futile" sticks in my mind as being grounds for not showing up and after six months of no compromise around those points I thin it's safe to say any further negotiations are "obviously futile".

It is important that the union members understand pretty clearly that if there is going to be no compromise around things like sick days then they are going to be out of work for months and months, not just a few weeks.

 

[tboy]

Yeah I can't see how anyone (but then again it is politics so who knows) could say to a city negotiator: you have to negotiate when there are obvious reasons like not having the funds to pay for the union demands.

I know I know, the city could raise the funds by raising taxes but frankly, if any more taxes get handed down to me, I'll start organizing a rally of my own ........

 

[wantoplay]

If the strikers are going to loose their sick time, then EVERYONE up to and Including the MAYOR should give up theirs too. Not fair to ask one group to do it, and not others.

 

[blackrock13]

If the strikers are going to loose their sick time, then EVERYONE up to and Including the MAYOR should give up theirs too. Not fair to ask one group to do it, and not others.

You may find that to be the stance as the diffent contracts come up for renewal.

As for the mayor I'd just settle for His Whiteness to make an appearance and lead. If he needs a venue for a council meeting and not have to cross a picket line I'm sure one can arrange. He has to realize his making enemies, with his actions and decision, on both sides.

 

[fuji]

If the strikers are going to loose their sick time, then EVERYONE up to and Including the MAYOR should give up theirs too. Not fair to ask one group to do it, and not others.

They aren't losing their sick time, the latest city offer gives them six months of sick days.

They just won't get paid for unused sick days anymore.

 

[Mrbig1949]

Why should they lose it

They aren't losing their sick time, the latest city offer gives them six months of sick days.

They just won't get paid for unused sick days anymore.

When teachers keep it? Let me tell you the teachers' days cost you a lot more. Decades old. BTW most unions and enlighterned managers as well as many economists consider these benefits as a kind of deferred wage like a pension.

The way to think about it is this. At the time the union opted for sick day bank or pension or other benefits, they could have negotiated for more money but took the benefit instead as a kind of deferred compensation.

No some people want to reneg on their original deal without compensation. That is how the workers see it.

 

[fuji]

Garbage workers are grossly overpaid. They do need a pay cut. This is one way of cutting.

It needs doing.

 

[blackrock13]

When teachers keep it? Let me tell you the teachers' days cost you a lot more. Decades old. BTW most unions and enlighterned managers as well as many economists consider these benefits as a kind of deferred wage like a pension.

The way to think about it is this. At the time the union opted for sick day bank or pension or other benefits, they could have negotiated for more money but took the benefit instead as a kind of deferred compensation.

No some people want to reneg on their original deal without compensation. That is how the workers see it.

When the unions 'opted'. they probably feel out of their collective chairs and then said quick sign it and run. QUICK.

Where's Someone when you need him. I don't know a single economist who thinks that way but I don't them all. Please MB, name couple so we know what rock pile to start looking under.

When you say reneg, do you mean back out of or just renegotiate.

Don't bring teachers into this trying to compare their jobs and training with garbage guys. It's apples and oranges. The only grip I have with teachers contracts is the PD days, especially those just a couple of weeks into the schools days, but I'll back a lot of the compensation that teachers get.

Again apples and oranges.

 

[fuji]

I agree it is a deferred wage, like a pension. It is very much like a retirement savings plan, you build up some sort of bank and then cash it out.

That is exactly the problem.

 

[Mrbig1949]

If that is the problem then.....

I agree it is a deferred wage, like a pension. It is very much like a retirement savings plan, you build up some sort of bank and then cash it out.

That is exactly the problem.

MANAGEMENT who also gets it BTW should not have agreed in the first place and the pay out in wages should have been even greater. Management believed at the time of the initial agreement, for teachers for example in the 1920s, that it would act as an incentive not to call in sick to go fishing. Everybody involved has seen it that way for decades now. You cannot just reneg on that after that kind of time without a huge payout.

 

[fuji]

MANAGEMENT who also gets it BTW should not have agreed in the first place

That's right. In fact, management should never have agreed to overpay the city workers at all. Not in this respect, nor in any other. Yet they did, because city managers have historically been pushovers and the union has a monopoly.

If we are going to get good value for taxpayer money we need to switch to contracting out, so that there is no monopoly. It's ok if the contracts go to unionized companies, so long as they compete with one another.

an incentive not to call in sick to go fishing

Which is retarded, becuase what it really is now is an incentive to come into work when you are sick and infect all of your co-workers, in a greedy effort to add a few bucks to your sick bank.

In the middle of an H1N1 flu pandemic the LAST thing we need is a system that rewards sick people for coming in to work.

You cannot just reneg on that after that kind of time without a huge payout.

Sure you can.

 

[someone]

That's right. In fact, management should never have agreed to overpay the city workers at all. Not in this respect, nor in any other. Yet they did, because city managers have historically been pushovers and the union has a monopoly.

I think that another problem is that the managers took their orders from politicians who knew they would not be in office when the sick day bills came due. Thus, for them, giving the sick day benefits results in union support for their next campaign and the public not getting upset over a current strike. I think this same problem occurs in many other contexts (not just politicians but also CEOs whose bonuses sometimes depend more on current stock prices than the longer term interests of the firm). I don’t have a solution to the problem, but I think it is significant.

 

[blackrock13]

I agree it is a deferred wage, like a pension. It is very much like a retirement savings plan, you build up some sort of bank and then cash it out.

That is exactly the problem.

I don't know. If it's deferred do they pay taxes on it. I hope so.

 

[Mrbig1949]

All this only lowers community standard of living

That's right. In fact, management should never have agreed to overpay the city workers at all. Not in this respect, nor in any other. Yet they did, because city managers have historically been pushovers and the union has a monopoly.

If we are going to get good value for taxpayer money we need to switch to contracting out, so that there is no monopoly. It's ok if the contracts go to unionized companies, so long as they compete with one another.



Which is retarded, becuase what it really is now is an incentive to come into work when you are sick and infect all of your co-workers, in a greedy effort to add a few bucks to your sick bank.

In the middle of an H1N1 flu pandemic the LAST thing we need is a system that rewards sick people for coming in to work.



Sure you can.

Just lowers the average standard of living across the board. The problem for you guys is that you are trying to sculpture a society that rewards what you do whatever that is. It is far more important to take care of everybody. You want policies that drive up the average standard of living so everybody benefits, not just you.

 

[ultraviolet]

Just lowers the average standard of living across the board. The problem for you guys is that you are trying to sculpture a society that rewards what you do whatever that is. It is far more important to take care of everybody. You want policies that drive up the average standard of living so everybody benefits, not just you.

Actually, I don't want policies that drive up the average standard of living so everybody benefits, simply because I am not average, so there is zero benefit to me. In fact, it unfairly hurts me.

I make a lot more than average in the private sector because my employer has deemed that the value I provide to his company is greater than what he pays me.

By lifting up the average, I am being punished and the average is being unfairly rewarded.

imo it's not right that others want to take what is rightfully mine so that a bunch of people I don't know can have more without earning it.

 

[fuji]

Just lowers the average standard of living across the board.

No, it doesn't. You are juts plain wrong. I showed you why you were wrong and then you started pounding on your table.

You can't pay fake high wages to people who return little value and claim they are middle class. Can China expand its middle class by declaring that henceforth rice farmers who previously earned $1/day will now earn $100/day?

No, because they aren't producing $100/day in value. They can't be paid more than they are worth in a sustainable way.

When you overpay for goods and services it's called a bubble and it isn't sustainable--eventually it falls apart and makes EVERYONE worse off.

If a guy is producing $10/hr in value and you pay him $20/hr you are actually making people worse off, not better off. He's happy for awhile but his salary is unsustainable and you are harming society at large.

This is, of course, just common fucking sense.

 

[ultraviolet]

This is, of course, just common fucking sense.

A wise person once told me that common sense isn't common.

Another wise person (who I never met), Albert Einstein, said, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former."

 

[Mrbig1949]

You are an asshole Fuji

No, it doesn't. You are juts plain wrong. I showed you why you were wrong and then you started pounding on your table.

You can't pay fake high wages to people who return little value and claim they are middle class. Can China expand its middle class by declaring that henceforth rice farmers who previously earned $1/day will now earn $100/day?

No, because they aren't producing $100/day in value. They can't be paid more than they are worth in a sustainable way.

When you overpay for goods and services it's called a bubble and it isn't sustainable--eventually it falls apart and makes EVERYONE worse off.

If a guy is producing $10/hr in value and you pay him $20/hr you are actually making people worse off, not better off. He's happy for awhile but his salary is unsustainable and you are harming society at large.

This is, of course, just common fucking sense.

You endlessly use words like "proven" "concede defeat" declare yourself the winner. You are a joke. Many countries are very successful using my model. Who is successful using yours? The USA, the source of all that is wrong with the world? don't make me laugh, LOL.