Unions!

[Eug]

I didn't say anything to make you think otherwise. There is a big difference between a sick day, and a bankable sick day.

Well, to expand on that previous post. While I do think benefits and vacations should be standard, that doesn't address the amount of benefits and vacations.

Everyone should probably get two weeks vacation. However, some perks would include 4 weeks vacation for example, while some jobs have better benefits than others. I would consider better benefits as a perk.

Similarly, I think a provision for sick days should be there, but the idea of bankable sick days seems bizarre to me. I much prefer the city's idea of having short term disability programs instead.

Yes, there's a big difference between sick days and bankable sick days, but there's also a big difference between 4 weeks vacation and 2 weeks vacation.

Side note, they do get to keep it. Any change would not effect current workers, only new workers hired in this new bargaining agreement. This fight is for workers who don't even work for the city yet.

What? That would be REALLY unfair then. What ever happened to equitable treatment within unions?

However, every article I've read so far has suggested that what the city wants is to remove bankable sick days for all employees, starting with the new contract. (Existing banked days would stay, but you couldn't bank any more.)

 

[Dilla]

However, every article I've read so far has suggested that what the city wants is to remove bankable sick days for all employees, starting with the new contract. (Existing banked days would stay, but you couldn't bank any more.)

Ahhh, that makes more sense. They were discussing it on CP24 yesterday, and they presented it as I explained above. I'm sure what you're saying is the correct scenario, however.

 

[mangasparky]

Anything and everything can be brought to the table in a contract negotiation. If the city decided to drop dental out of a benefit package, they would, CUPE would protest and bargain it back.

I did say that I don't support a public sector strike, when alluding to the services that the CUPE workers provide.

For me it's frustration that I have worked hard to obtain an education and a job, and I do not get paid as much, don't have nearly as much job security, nor a pension, health benefits, paid time off; etc. and have to - by law - pay the wages of these people who have more than me in almost every other way, and they complain they're not getting enough. All this for unskilled labour.

This sounds like envy. Again, career choicing.

Employers have to lay-off some of their best and brightest up and coming employees, and keep and promote the dregs who do just enough to not get fired. Wonderful.

Somewhere along the way a union worker has been painted to be viewed as lazy, and uneducated. I find this hard to understand. The gross majority of workers that I have come across are very hard working. Of course, like anywhere, there are the dead beats.

Is it fair to be better at your job but paid less than someone else?

Right now I am better at my job then someone that is getting paid more. Eventually I will be paid the same, and will be given many more oppurtunities then said someone that is collecting paychecks to play hide and seek. These slackers eventually get weeded out.

I may have misquoted something, but my intention was to continue the conversation.

 

[Eug]

The gross majority of workers that I have come across are very hard working.

I agree.

Of course, like anywhere, there are the dead beats.

That's the problem. In certain unions, it becomes very difficult to get rid of the deadbeats if there is seniority, in many unionized environments.

Right now I am better at my job then someone that is getting paid more. Eventually I will be paid the same, and will be given many more oppurtunities then said someone that is collecting paychecks to play hide and seek. These slackers eventually get weeded out.

However, a non-union worker like that would get "weeded" out the next day, not 5 years from now... maybe.

Obviously there needs to be some balance, but I think many unions have gone way too far off balance here.

 

[makattack]

Does anyone know what the process/laws would be in regards to somehow firing the striking employees and hiring new ones/contracting out??? Is this even possible in Canada?
(it's been used in the States during the air traffic controllers strike in the 1980's)

The days of Unions holding Toronto hostage need to stop!

 

[mangasparky]

However, a non-union worker like that would get "weeded" out the next day, not 5 years from now... maybe.

I agree, but 5 years is a stretch when comparing to someone that is incompetent enough to be canned next day in a non-union enviroment.

Obviously there needs to be some balance, but I think many unions have gone way too far off balance here.

I also agree with you here. The balance may need to be lifted from the non-union side of this see-saw though. Meaning, there should be a shift for higher standards in non-union areas. All of this is a short sighted scrutiny of a unions that are believed by many to outrageously over compensated. In the longterm, these unions will help to change every workers situation in a positive way.

 

[Dilla]

This sounds like envy. Again, career choicing.

You've got to be joking. You think I can just choose to work for a public sector union? There's only so many jobs that can be overpaid. I dont' have any friends in these unions, so how would I get hired? Have you seen the lineups when the city is hiring for these jobs? Kinda says it all.

I'm not complaining about my situation, it's tough, but fair. I don't mind that I have to struggle to get more. But I do, and I don't see why others should get these things merely by right of passage. Work for it.

 

[Eug]

I agree, but 5 years is a stretch when comparing to someone that is incompetent enough to be canned next day in a non-union enviroment.

Yes, that is a stretch. My sis got hit with that though in her management role a few years back. She got a transfer of an employee with a glowing recommendation letter from the previous supervisor. The employee turned out to be an absolute disaster. It was her mistake not to followup more closely, but it turns out the glowing recommendation letter existed only because the previous supervisor (whom she didn't know well) wanted to get rid of the employee asap.

Upon further investigation, it turns out this has been happening for the better part of a decade. They turf out this person to departments with new management, because the new management doesn't know any better. Each dept. saddled with this person would make this person do brainless menial work, but would never give this person any level of responsibility.

In the longterm, these unions will help to change every workers situation in a positive way.

Just like the CAW.

 

[Kaiserhead77]

Does anyone know what the process/laws would be in regards to somehow firing the striking employees and hiring new ones/contracting out??? Is this even possible in Canada?
(it's been used in the States during the air traffic controllers strike in the 1980's)

The days of Unions holding Toronto hostage need to stop!

Ahh, yes, I find it interesting when people use the Air Traffic Controllers strike in 1981 as a good example of how to deal with organized labour. What people fail to mention is that weeks before the presidential election, on Oct. 20, 1980, Ronald Reagan wrote a reassuring letter to PATCO President Robert Poli, vowing to cooperate with the air traffic controllers union.

Reagan wrote, “I have been briefed by members of my staff ... that too few people [are] working unreasonable hours with obsolete equipment. ... You can rest assured that if I am elected president, I will take whatever steps are necessary ... . I pledge to you that my administration will work very closely with you to bring about a spirit of cooperation between the president and the air traffic controllers.â€

So, you're telling me, that negotiating in bad faith is the most appropriate way to deal with organized labour? Are you out of you mind or totally naive about what the effects of such an approach would have on the provision of services in this City? There are 26,000 striking CUPE members right now, not all of them are garbage workers, most are trained professionals with high-level degrees that have no problem getting work in the private sector if working for the City became unstable and unsatisfying. Can you imagine if those former City workers were hired by private interests to work against the cheaper staff brought in to replace them...just think about how it would affect City Planning alone.

 

[Dilla]

Somewhere along the way a union worker has been painted to be viewed as lazy, and uneducated. I find this hard to understand. The gross majority of workers that I have come across are very hard working. Of course, like anywhere, there are the dead beats.

You're avoiding the argument by trying to make me sound like a meanie.
Under seniority rules, this may not be the norm, but it is quite possible. Where workers are judged by their actual work, this would not happen.

Any union worker I've ever met has had a better work ethic than me. But they tell me stories about others, again just like anywhere else. But unlike anywhere else, nothing seems to happen to these people.

Right now I am better at my job then someone that is getting paid more. Eventually I will be paid the same, and will be given many more oppurtunities then said someone that is collecting paychecks to play hide and seek. These slackers eventually get weeded out.

I may have misquoted something, but my intention was to continue the conversation.

Well, if you're happy with that, great. What about others that aren't? They have to join the union and live by its rules if they work in a unionized place. So for me, my career choicing is perfect.

 

[mangasparky]

You're got to be joking. You think I can just choose to work for a public sector union? There's only so many jobs that can be overpaid. I dont' have any friends in these unions, so how would I get hired? Have you seen the lineups when these places are hiring? Kinda says it all.

I was joking. Here is where I am not.

These jobs are not overpaid. Other simalar non-union jobs are underpaid. There are lineups, who wouldn't lineup for more money, for the same work.

I didn't have any friends on the inside when I was hired into my union, I knew no one. So the idea that nepotism or other relationships is the only way to get hired is pretty much squashed. I would argue that nepotistic hirings are at the same levels, union or not.

 

[Kaiserhead77]

You've got to be joking. You think I can just choose to work for a public sector union? There's only so many jobs that can be overpaid. I dont' have any friends in these unions, so how would I get hired? Have you seen the lineups when the city is hiring for these jobs? Kinda says it all.

I'm not complaining about my situation, it's tough, but fair. I don't mind that I have to struggle to get more. But I do, and I don't see why others should get these things merely by right of passage. Work for it.

When times were good, the City couldn't attract enough staff because the pay and benefits for comparable private sector jobs was significantly better. Working for the City is not a secret club, if you want to join the public service, its not that difficult. The problem with being a trained professional in the public service is that the opportunity cost of the stability and benefits often far outweight the financial gain and freedom that can be obtained in the private sector when you are truly exceptional in your field. Plus, you're not obligated to tow the party line and deal with the public.

 

[Dilla]

I was joking. Here is where I am not.

These jobs are not overpaid. Other simalar non-union jobs are underpaid.

My understanding of the underpinnings of our economic system does not allow for a scenario such as the one you're describing here. See, if everyone gets paid more, than money is simply worth less than it was. It would be inflation. If we all got a 30% raise tomorrow, no one would actually be better off, prices would increase by 30%. Overall wealth can only be created by creating new efficiencies, which unions are not really known for (see - seniority policy) . Particularly public ones which do not have to face competition on any level.

I didn't have any friends on the inside when I was hired into my union, I knew no one. So the idea that nepotism or other relationships is the only way to get hired is pretty much squashed. I would argue that nepotistic hirings are at the same levels, union or not.

Here, you are correct. I got carried away, and I retract this. You can certainly get hired into a union, but I do believe the public ones are difficult to get a position in. Nepotism is rampant everywhere.

When times were good, the City couldn't attract enough staff because the pay and benefits for comparable private sector jobs was significantly better.

I have a hard time believing this, do you have any links or articles? I suppose it's possible, but it seems counter-intuitive to me (obviously). Times were never so good that private employers were offering pensions, full health, 18 sick days and early retirement for not taking them, etc. to unskilled labourers.

 

[JasonParis]

I find it interesting how a whole new generation of progressive people are mostly wary of unions. It should really make the leadership within organized labour take note, but I doesn't. They continue on like its 1972 and preaching to a membership base that is only eroding.

Personally, I think unions do a lot of good and that much of it goes unreported, but they make it very hard for anyone to defend them when they are striking, yes legally, but still striking over something so unrealistic in such hard times. I really feel some of our unions, particularly the public sector ones, are nailing the nails into their own coffins.

 

[mangasparky]

My understanding of the underpinnings of our economic system does not allow for a scenario such as the one you're describing here. See, if everyone gets paid more, than money is simply worth less than it was. It would be inflation. If we all got a 30% raise tomorrow, no one would actually be better off, prices would increase by 30%.

My statement didn't reflect what I was trying to say. I believe a better balance is needed for everyone. I am clear when I say, vacation time, sick days, and an array of benefits should be a right of every Canadian. I think unions bring these items to the fore-front which results in longterm progress.