Unions!

[kEiThZ]

I would love to see the referendums on agreements for city unions. Put out a ballot every 2-3 years that has the service, the cost of the agreement and percentage impact on property increases and let the residents judge the value of these workers. Then let the resident bear the impact as well if the workers strike.

What I find interesting is the fact that union membership is mandatory for the public sector. That's actually pretty rare in the world. Canada's one of the few places where, when you get hired by the government, you have to join the union, whether you want to or not. That's what gives public sector unions their clout. I work in a unionized government office and all the employees hate their union. Why? Because these analysts who require a master's degree minimum to work here are in the same bargaining unit as secretaries with high school diplomas. In this scenario, unionization is worse than communism. At least communist recognized the varied value of different work. In my office, these analysts who have no job dissatisfaction are often forced to strike because a few secretaries on the other side of town have a grievance. This is just one example of the problems with public sector unions.

I don't have a problem with unionization and in general I think it's good for society because they add balance. What I do have problem with are monopolies being unionized. Government unions are often double monopolies, on the service and the labour. Imagine if the private sector did that, we'd be screaming 'Bloody Murder' and there would be calls for nationalization. When a TTC bus driver has regular pay as much as a unionized Air Canada pilot, you know something is wrong.

 

[afransen]

This is a stretch, but has the new garbage bin and truck system increased efficiency? If so, according to afransen, does that not increase the wealth and value of our local garbage people?

I agree with increasing CPP payments for a more comfortable retirement for everyone. Unions are also forcing that hand. I can't see how unions reduce the wealth of everybody else, I just can't see it.

I'm guessing you haven't taken any intro economics courses?

Take the example of Etobicoke garbage collection. The private sector can have the garbage there collected using 35 heads vs. public sector needing 71. If you outsource to the private sector--even if they are paid the same as the public sector employees--you can take the remaining 36 people and put them to some other use, like maintaining parks, repairing sidewalks, whatever. For the same price (71 salaries), you get more 'useful stuff' than you would with the public sector. Unions breed inefficiencies like this, making us all collectively less wealthy.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ It's not that they always breed inefficiencies....it's just that this is most often the case in the public sector. In the private sector, it can be argued that unions provide a useful function of preventing employees from being exploited. I don't see how that's the case with the public sector. The government is probably the employer that's least likely to abuse employees' rights, union or no union. So at this point, all unions represent is a collective bargaining tool that seeks to create benefits for a few employees at the cost of the public good.

Again, can anybody explain to me why a TTC bus driver should make more than an Air Canada RJ co-pilot. They both carry the same amount of passengers and work the same hours. They are both unionized. Yet the guy who needs 2 years of community college (minimum), 5-10 years of flying experience (minimum), and works in a complex work environment gets paid less? If there was ever proof that public sector unions distort wages beyond anything reasonable, this one is it.

 

[mangasparky]

I'm guessing you haven't taken any intro economics courses?

Take the example of Etobicoke garbage collection. The private sector can have the garbage there collected using 35 heads vs. public sector needing 71. If you outsource to the private sector--even if they are paid the same as the public sector employees--you can take the remaining 36 people and put them to some other use, like maintaining parks, repairing sidewalks, whatever. For the same price (71 salaries), you get more 'useful stuff' than you would with the public sector. Unions breed inefficiencies like this, making us all collectively less wealthy.

Do you really think anybody on this board has a hard time understanding what you just reposted? Did you need to take intro economics to understand that?

My comment was about the increased efficiency with the new garbage collection system. Nobody wants to talk about that possibility, I doubt that it is a signifigant production increase, but it is definitely a new angle of discussion. I also said that it was a stretch.

We can replace or outsource every unionized city jobto the private sector if you would like. Eventually, these workers will demand more, and they will strike for a union, to get what they are worth.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Nope they won't be striking...because if they were in the private sector, it's quite likely that any garbage collection service paying out 25-30 bucks an hour would quickly find itself going under leaving those employees without a job. The only reason these workers get what they do is because of the double monopoly of a union providing labour to a sole service provider, the government. Take away either one of those monopolies and those workers would be getting paid a market wage....in other words 'what they are actually worth'.

 

[mangasparky]

Nope they won't be striking...because if they were in the private sector, it's quite likely that any garbage collection service paying out 25-30 bucks an hour would quickly find itself going under leaving those employees without a job.

They would strike, unless they were given adequate increases in pay, and other types of benefits. It might take a few years, but eventually they would organize.

 

[salvius]

What I find interesting is the fact that union membership is mandatory for the public sector. That's actually pretty rare in the world. Canada's one of the few places where, when you get hired by the government, you have to join the union, whether you want to or not. That's what gives public sector unions their clout. I work in a unionized government office and all the employees hate their union. Why? Because these analysts who require a master's degree minimum to work here are in the same bargaining unit as secretaries with high school diplomas. In this scenario, unionization is worse than communism. At least communist recognized the varied value of different work. In my office, these analysts who have no job dissatisfaction are often forced to strike because a few secretaries on the other side of town have a grievance. This is just one example of the problems with public sector unions.

But there is recognition of varied value of work because the analysts undoubtedly get paid more for their jobs; besides, nothing prevents them from having their own union. Too much work, though. As a planner with that MA, I must say I wouldn't mind sharing a union with those secretaries so that my benefits and work conditions improve. They sure are better than the private sector, even if salaries often are not.

 

[kEiThZ]

They would strike, unless they were given adequate increases in pay, and other types of benefits. It might take a few years, but eventually they would organize.

Key word in your post being 'adequate'. Many would argue that most unskilled public sector employees get wages that are well beyond anything resembling 'adequate'. And again, this is not about unionization per se, but about the impact of unionization on the public sector.

It's quite telling that the public sector is completely unionized while unions in the private sector have sucked at protecting the most vulnerable workers: those in the service sector. I put a lot of this down to the laziness of big labour. It's far easier to organize civil servants (especially when you require the employer to require every employee to be a union member) and seek wage concessions (because of the double monopoly) then it is to actually you know actually fight for better working conditions (for those working in restaurants, retail, hotels, etc.).

Public sector unions have no bounds on the demands they can make since the taxpayer is an unending supply of funds. Their efforts of course cause taxes to go up which results in less jobs and a lower quality of life for the rest of us, but they aren't really concerned about us. Meanwhile, they yap on about solidarity but making no real efforts to help those who would actually benefit the most from unions. To me this shows that big labour is just as greedy and lazy as big business.

 

[kEiThZ]

But there is recognition of varied value of work because the analysts undoubtedly get paid more for their jobs; besides, nothing prevents them from having their own union. Too much work, though. As a planner with that MA, I must say I wouldn't mind sharing a union with those secretaries so that my benefits and work conditions improve. They sure are better than the private sector, even if salaries often are not.

Actually there is something preventing them from having their union. The federal civil service is unionized along categories of work. So these analysts, because they touch paper, fall under the rubric of administrative services. And all AS bargains as one unit so they lose out. Moreover, now that they are trying to get re-classified the union is putting up a fight. It does not want to lose it's highest paid members of course. Yet, these analysts who have no commonality whatsoever with the rest of their bargaining unit are forced to suffer. And the argument could be made that the secretaries are probably bringing their wages and benefits down; the analysts I work with are among the lowest paid among analysts from all the various government departments. Since those secretaries are getting paid more, somebody has to get paid less. Unfortunately, its my colleagues.

 

[salvius]

Actually there is something preventing them from having their union. The federal civil service is unionized along categories of work. So these analysts, because they touch paper, fall under the rubric of administrative services. And all AS bargains as one unit so they lose out. Moreover, now that they are trying to get re-classified the union is putting up a fight. It does not want to lose it's highest paid members of course. Yet, these analysts who have no commonality whatsoever with the rest of their bargaining unit are forced to suffer.

This I did not know.

And the argument could be made that the secretaries are probably bringing their wages and benefits down; the analysts I work with are among the lowest paid among analysts from all the various government departments. Since those secretaries are getting paid more, somebody has to get paid less. Unfortunately, its my colleagues.

Argument could be made, but I doubt it. City planners share unions with other city workers but get paid about as much as those of us in the private sector (usually more to start with, less by the time career is over is my general observation), have far more benefits (usually better vacation, supplementary health care, sick leave), and I won't even mention unpaid overtime. So, they don't seem to be too disadvantaged by the association.

 

[kEiThZ]

Argument could be made, but I doubt it.

Well the fact that they are getting paid less seems to be a concern. Its lead to above average turnover. Meanwhile, it seems to be a remarkable coincidence that administrative staff lower on the food chain, seem to have none of those issues. Management is of course in a bind. It would like to pay these employees but doesn't have the budget to do so because it has been allocated a certain amount for all AS employees. So we are stuck with a secretary getting paid more while defence analysts gets underpaid. And its ridiculous because their work is not related at all and there is no path of promotion from being a secretary to a policy analyst within the department.

Anyway, it's not me you have to convince. Almost my entire floor would jump ship if they had the chance. They are particularly unhappy with what they consider to be militant behaviour on the part of their union....which they feel is not becoming a unit that represents professionals (except that CUPE represents very few professionals). And they are none too pleased about CUPE's politicking (ie. wading into the Israel-Palestine issue). I give it a few years before a good chunk of the professional class of the federal civil service gives CUPE the boot.

Argument could be made, but I doubt it. City planners share unions with other city workers but get paid about as much as those of us in the private sector (usually more to start with, less by the time career is over is my general observation), have far more benefits (usually better vacation, supplementary health care, sick leave), and I won't even mention unpaid overtime. So, they don't seem to be too disadvantaged by the association.

That maybe great for city planners. But it's obviously not the case for all of the public sector. Although pay has improved in recent years, you'll still find that highly skilled workers get poached from the public sector all the time. And these are the workers who are expensive to hire once they go private. I don't buy the argument that we should be paying secretaries more while underpaying policy analysts with phDs because it'll all work out in the end. Might work for city planners, but from what I have seen, that kind of thinking leads to lower morale, higher turnover and lower productivity among the very staff that you can't 'contract out' and replace that easily (or at least cheaply).

 

[afransen]

^ It's not that they always breed inefficiencies....

I can't think of a non-unionized work force that would provide better service and/or improved efficiency if unionized. Any suggestions?

Do you really think anybody on this board has a hard time understanding what you just reposted?
...
We can replace or outsource every unionized city jobto the private sector if you would like. Eventually, these workers will demand more, and they will strike for a union, to get what they are worth.

You don't seem to understand how waste (putting more resources into providing a good or service than is necessary) reduces overall wealth.

Regarding your second point, this work is worth less than they are paid in total salary+fringe. As Holyday points out, when Etobicoke was outsourced, the contract was awarded to the Teamsters union. This needn't be about union busting, but rather that ensuring work is done in a cost-effective--and fair--manner.

They would strike, unless they were given adequate increases in pay, and other types of benefits. It might take a few years, but eventually they would organize.

And the company they work for would lose their contract if they priced themselves out of the bid, and they would all be laid off. If they are not paid a satisfactory wage, they can seek employment elsewhere. The rest of society is not held hostage by strikes, as the duration of the labour agreement matches the duration of the outsourcing agreement.

 

[kEiThZ]

I can't think of a non-unionized work force that would provide better service and/or improved efficiency if unionized. Any suggestions?

I have read before that in some jurisdictions cities have allowed union locals to bid on work alongside the public sector and that they have won out quite often. Though, one could argue that once you are bidding for work, the double monopoly is broken and the unions demands are likely to be kept in check.

If unions truly provide more productivity they should have no problem going head to head with the private sector. I think Miller should implement this solution in Toronto.

 

[Whoaccio]

^ It's not that they always breed inefficiencies....it's just that this is most often the case in the public sector. In the private sector, it can be argued that unions provide a useful function of preventing employees from being exploited.

Is this really the case anymore? Most of the founding principles of collective bargaining were born out in the early industrial era. The reality of the era was that most industrial workers were subject to local monopolies, both due to the reality of the ages and government policy. Hardly anybody owned a car or lived within walking distance of a few employers. There was no Jobing.com, or Monster or any other employment service firms. Few people were rich enough to leave the town they were born in. In short, there was a ridiculous degree of information asymmetry between the proletariat and managerial class of the day which couldn't easily be resolved short of a collective bargaining unit.

It would be hard to argue now though that there is any significant degree of information asymmetry. If a doctor is being underpaid in Timmins, they move to Ottawa. If a newfie contractor is being underpaid in St. John's, they move to Fort Mac. Anybody living even in a midsized city has hundreds of different career paths and can, and often do, travel 50km each way to find work. The nature of employment has also changed. There are literally hundreds of thousands of businesses in Canada, compared to some of the industrial monopolies of earlier eras that would exert monopolistic control over local labor markets.

The entire idea of the 'working class' as it were seems dubious in this day and age. An accountant could easily have a lower income than any number of unskilled positions, coupled with half a decade plus of deferred earnings and student debt, yet would never be considered 'working class' vs. a line worker at GM who could make twice her salary. The average public employee in this country will retire with pension valued at around 1 million dollars. The average tax payer responsible for funding these pensions? About a fifth of that. The unionized public sector, coupled with the pseudo public unions, almost has more in common with earlier nobility than any kind of working class. Earning an unambiguous premium to the general public, directly extorting the poorer members of society to support these privileges by withholding essential services. The same could easily be said of the super rich in some senses. The difference being the portion of the economy represented by these super-elites is minimal, maybe a percent or two of GDP. The public sector unions by contrast are responsible in some sense for 30-35% of the economy.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ True enough and that's largely why we've seen a decline in the popularity of unions. That being said, the onset of globalization has brought back some of the exploitative behaviours in the private sector, which is why there's an argument to be made that unions are still needed. Certainly the growing gap between rich and poor and rising wage multiples between CEO and line worker tells us that not all is right.

However, I do agree though that none of this translates into the public sector. A good chunk of the public sector actually makes more than the 'managers' (politicians). And they have perks that are beyond compare anywhere. I really don't understand what 'rights' they are fighting for anymore. And it seems to me that the worst attitudes seem to be most prevalent at the municipal level and particularly with unskilled or semi-skilled workers. It's remarkable that you won't find public sector accountants and civil planners complaining about wages all that often but bus drivers are trash collectors are always ready to strike.