Getting Rid Of Unions

[archanfel]

You're wrong, unionization drives up the wages of workers in the entire sector. It has spillover benefits for everyone. And you're assumption that unionized wages are "artificially inflated" has no basis whatsoever. If anything non-unionized wages are artificially depressed. They've been stagnate for decades while productivity and management pay has skyrocketed.

Then I am guess consumer price is artificially depressed too. In the 80s we had double digit inflation, now we barely have 2%. What happened? Big conspiracy theory!

Guess what, that's how market works. Supply and demand determines the price, or in this case the salary. Nobody said real wages are guaranteed to increase. If you want higher wages, learn new skills and move to more in demand market. Like, I don't know, become a manager? If you think now is bad, wait till they invent universal robots.

If you don't believe unionized wages in the public sector are artificially inflated, then I guess you will have no problem let them compete with private sector workers then. I am glad we have another supporter for contracting out garbage collection.

 

[Palma]

In the last decade Ontario has lost about 200,000 manufacturing jobs, and those that survived have seen their wages rolled back. Should the government be adding to this trend, or trying to counter it by maintaining stable employment and wages? Privatization is almost certain to mean lower wages and fewer total jobs in the long run. This will also hurt private sector employment. Public sector job cuts increase the supply of unemployed workers and thus decreases wages in the private sector.

I agree. Globalization has resulted in the loss of these jobs and these manufacturing jobs were once considered good paying jobs. I read somewhere on urban Toronto about the Weston area which once supported 5 major manufacturing companies such as Kodak, CCM, Moffat (builds appliances). This woman worked at Kodak and it had a defined benefit pension plan and I bet the other manufacturing companies did to and all 5 companies had a hockey team and they competed against each other, etc, etc.

We once had manufacturing companies with obviously good paying jobs where people could remain at for 30 years and a defined benefit pension plan (try to find companies today that have defined pension plan other than government and banks). And globalization is responsible for the loss of all that. And now manufacturing jobs have come to symbolize low paying jobs. People complain about the loss of all these jobs to China or India and then turn around and say garbage should be contracted out. I don't get it. Like somehow those jobs are perceived in a certain light and people feel those workers should not get paid the amount they do. To me it seems vindictive. People may have low paying jobs and they begrudge people that have good paying jobs.

 

[archanfel]

I agree. Globalization has resulted in the loss of these jobs and these manufacturing jobs were once considered good paying jobs. I read somewhere on urban Toronto about the Weston area which once supported 5 major manufacturing companies such as Kodak, CCM, Moffat (builds appliances). This woman worked at Kodak and it had a defined benefit pension plan and I bet the other manufacturing companies did to and all 5 companies had a hockey team and they competed against each other, etc, etc.

We once had manufacturing companies with obviously good paying jobs where people could remain at for 30 years and a defined benefit pension plan (try to find companies today that have defined pension plan other than government and banks). And globalization is responsible for the loss of all that. And now manufacturing jobs have come to symbolize low paying jobs. People complain about the loss of all these jobs to China or India and then turn around and say garbage should be contracted out. I don't get it. Like somehow those jobs are perceived in a certain light and people feel those workers should not get paid the amount they do. To me it seems vindictive. People may have low paying jobs and they begrudge people that have good paying jobs.

Please explain what's the relationship between globalization and contracting out garbage collection. Are we contracting them out to China or India? Are we going to have somebody sitting in Mumbai remotely driving our garbage trucks?

 

[SimonP]

Please explain what's the relationship between globalization and contracting out garbage collection. Are we contracting them out to China or India? Are we going to have somebody sitting in Mumbai remotely driving our garbage trucks?

It's pretty simple. Globalization has allowed the contracting out of manufacturing jobs. It has also caused the Walmartization of retail, and a sharp fall in pay and benefits in that sector. While this has lead to cheaper consumer good for everyone, it's had a sharply negative effect on parts of the workforce. Lower income earners and workers without a university education are steadily falling ever further behind other workers. Garbage workers, TTC drivers, police station cleaners, and the other things that the right want privatized, all fall into those demographics. If the public sector were to also begin cutting jobs and wages in these areas, it would only worsen an already serious problem.

Guess what, that's how market works. Supply and demand determines the price, or in this case the salary.

In a perfect world, but labour markets are far from perfect. Companies are big, and have a lot more power than any individual. There is a power imbalance between companies and individuals, and firms use this power to depress wages. This imbalance can clearly be seen in the era before we had unions, and by looking at countries like China where unions are very weak. Unions are far from perfect, but they are a useful corrective.

 

[archanfel]

It's pretty simple. Globalization has allowed the contracting out of manufacturing jobs. It has also caused the Walmartization of retail, and a sharp fall in pay and benefits in that sector. While this has lead to cheaper consumer good for everyone, it's had a sharply negative effect on parts of the workforce. Lower income earners and workers without a university education are steadily falling ever further behind other workers. Garbage workers, TTC drivers, police station cleaners, and the other things that the right want privatized, all fall into those demographics. If the public sector were to also begin cutting jobs and wages in these areas, it would only worsen an already serious problem.

As I have explained previously, these jobs can't be out sourced. Shutting private workers out of the garbage collection market does not make any sense.

In a perfect world, but labour markets are far from perfect. Companies are big, and have a lot more power than any individual. There is a power imbalance between companies and individuals, and firms use this power to depress wages. This imbalance can clearly be seen in the era before we had unions, and by looking at countries like China where unions are very weak. Unions are far from perfect, but they are a useful corrective.

First of all, I am not arguing against unions. Contracting out garbage collection does not mean private sector workers can't form unions and I suspect they do have unions. I agree with you, unions are very useful. And not just for workers. Without unions, you can have random walk offs and attrition, both are very costly to the employer. However, I am against a union monopolize a labour market via government intervention since the market forces would stop working.

Secondly, no matter how powerful companies are, they can't change the rules of the market. Supply and demand controls price. If not having a university degree is so bad for workers, they will go get one. Suddenly you have a shortage of workers. And that's exactly what happened in China. The salary in the coast regions are skyrocketing, especially for skilled workers. Companies are either moving in land or looking for cheaper labour markets. Interestingly, their university graduates are facing stagnant salaries since there are too many of them. The market is always right in the long run.

 

[GraphicMatt]

If companies get too big and powerful they can absolutely change the rules of the market. That's why we have anti-trust regulations.

 

[spider]

I am not opposed to unions in the private sector. If the union decides to strike against GM, go ahead, that is a problem for a privately owned corporation to resolve while you and I buy a Ford or some other make of automobile. It doesn't have an existential impact on the public. A strike is an effort by the union to extract a larger slice of the employers profits by with holding the means of obtaining those profits, their labour.

Publicly owned bodies that are unionised tend to be monopolies which is a very different situation given that there is no profit from which to extract higher wages or benefits. The union always wins because the public purse is bottomless and the pain of withdrawn services is suffered by everyone.

Contracting out is the only solution, although it may be rather bloody to initiate, it is working all over the world. In this model the unions are bargaining with a private company which doesn't have the public purse to pillage every 2 years. If they are unreasonable the company fails and they are out of work or knocking on the door of the next company to bid on their old job.

 

[SimonP]

Publicly owned bodies that are unionised tend to be monopolies which is a very different situation given that there is no profit from which to extract higher wages or benefits. The union always wins because the public purse is bottomless and the pain of withdrawn services is suffered by everyone.

That public sector areas are also monopolies is also an argument for them to be unionized, as they also tend to be monopolies, or near monopolies, in the hiring sector as well. If you're a streetcar driver who's unhappy with the TTC you have very limited options. You could retrain for another job, or move to one of the other cities with streetcars, but both of those are risky and expensive options. Because of the TTC monopoly on streetcar driving employment those workers are at a great disadvantage when dealing with the TTC. Having a union helps redress this balance.

 

[SimonP]

As I have explained previously, these jobs can't be out sourced. Shutting private workers out of the garbage collection market does not make any sense.

Let me try another way of explaining it. When it comes to employment, the public sector and the private sector are in competition. Every worker has a choice between working in the public sector or the private sector. If the public sector pays higher wages they will attract all the best workers. To prevent this, the private sector thus also pays higher wages so that they can also get the good employees. Wages are thus pushed higher for everyone. This helps counter the steady downward push on wages that has been caused by globalization.

 

[spider]

If you're a streetcar driver who's unhappy with the TTC you have very limited options.

Was this person born a streetcar driver, not likely. Chances are pretty good that he or she was retrained from a previous occupation as I don't see a lot of streetcar drivers fresh out of high school. If this is the case what is the problem with retraining again if necessary? Performing the same function at the same workplace for 30 years is no longer a normal career expectation even if you are a union member.

 

[Palma]

Let me try another way of explaining it. When it comes to employment, the public sector and the private sector are in competition. Every worker has a choice between working in the public sector or the private sector. If the public sector pays higher wages they will attract all the best workers. To prevent this, the private sector thus also pays higher wages so that they can also get the good employees. Wages are thus pushed higher for everyone. This helps counter the steady downward push on wages that has been caused by globalization.

You have got to be joking, that the private sector also pays higher wages so that they can get also get good employees. Ya, maybe for top level executives with all the stock options and so forth, the private sector is higher but for any other level/position no way the wages are on par.

 

[Rob]

That public sector areas are also monopolies is also an argument for them to be unionized, as they also tend to be monopolies, or near monopolies, in the hiring sector as well. If you're a streetcar driver who's unhappy with the TTC you have very limited options. You could retrain for another job, or move to one of the other cities with streetcars, but both of those are risky and expensive options. Because of the TTC monopoly on streetcar driving employment those workers are at a great disadvantage when dealing with the TTC. Having a union helps redress this balance.

That streetcar driver would use his license (since he would also be a bus driver) and obtain work at a charter coach company, or drive a dump truck or snowplow, maybe upgrade to a tractor-trailer license or drive a school bus. It likely wouldn't be long before he'd wish he'd never left his old job.

 

[archanfel]

Let me try another way of explaining it. When it comes to employment, the public sector and the private sector are in competition. Every worker has a choice between working in the public sector or the private sector. If the public sector pays higher wages they will attract all the best workers. To prevent this, the private sector thus also pays higher wages so that they can also get the good employees. Wages are thus pushed higher for everyone. This helps counter the steady downward push on wages that has been caused by globalization.

First of all, this has nothing to with manufacture workers since the city is not hiring manufacture workers. Unless you want all manufacture workers to go drive garbage trucks. Well, guess what, they can't do that either since the union monopolized all the garbage collection works.

Secondly, you are arguing both ways. If you believe that in order to retain the best workers, private sectors would have to pay higher wages. Then private companies competing with each other would achieve the same thing. Not to mention the city can't attract the best workers since if I am not mistaken, you don't get paid more for being a better worker in the public sector. You also can't get fired so there's little demand for new workers.

Therefore, manufactures workers would have to live with their meager salaries and pay taxes so that public sector workers can enjoy higher wages. I am sure that they feel better knowing that other people without a university degree is living the high life using their money. Have you ever talked with a private sector worker without a university degree how they feel about that? Or did you just say "I know this is better for you, now fork over the cash."?

 

[spider]

Have you ever talked with a private sector worker without a university degree how they feel about that? Or did you just say "I know this is better for you, now fork over the cash."?

I have not only spoken to one, I am one and I am far from alone.

 

[SimonP]

First of all, this has nothing to with manufacture workers since the city is not hiring manufacture workers. Unless you want all manufacture workers to go drive garbage trucks. Well, guess what, they can't do that either since the union monopolized all the garbage collection works.

As I've noted this is not just about manufacturing. The part of society that has seen an major erosion in wages over the last few years are workers without a university education. This is not only manufacturing, but retail and low end services sector as well. Also in this demographic group are some public sector workers, such as garbage workers, transit drivers, and cleaners. These public sector workers have seen less or no decrease in wages and total employment, and this has been important in preventing the problem from getting worse.

It is a problem, and a big one that can be seen clearly in Toronto. In 1975 66% of Torontonians lived in middle income neighbourhoods (areas no more than 20% richer or poorer than the average). Today only 29% of people live in such neighbourhoods. In 1975 only 1% of people lived in neighbourhoods that were 40% or more below average income, today 13% of the city does. The growing gap between rich and poor is creating troubled neighbourhoods across the city.

The last thing we want to be doing is making this problem worse by eliminating the fair wage policy or slashing wages for the lowest income earners in the civil service. Especially when the benefits of doing so are so small. Rob Ford's most optimistic prediction is that selling off the garbage system will save $20 million per year, or about 0.2% of the city budget. How much effect is a 0.2% tax cut really going to have?