Unions!

[cdr108]

Anyways I'm glad I work for a Union for the following reasons which I would not receive in the private sector. I can afford a house, I can afford a new car, I have extreme health benefits, I have a pension plan. I make 4x the money my counter part in a private company makes and yet the counter parts company charges the exact same amount of money for the service as our union does.

that's a great example of what's wrong.

you don't work for the union, you are just part of it ... you work for your employer and if it's the public sector, then it's the taxpayer

to be earning 4x the money for the same work ... what a waste of taxes.
to be more than fair, i think many would be willing to pay 1.5-2x the private sector and that's more than adequate.

would you pay $4 for a bottle of coke or $1 for the same product at another store?

 

[Dilla]

to be more than fair, i think many would be willing to pay 1.5-2x the private sector and that's more than adequate.

Why pay more at all? With all the other perks Maggie mentioned (and a few that she didn't) working in the public sector would still be much better than in private, even at the same wages.

While speaking with an older friend of the family the other week, he was telling me that when he was younger, public workers still had the sweet benefits, but got got paid somewhat less than the private equivalent. According to him back in the day the public sector worked like this: Once you're in full time, as long as you don't totally screw up, you pretty much have a job for life. You don't have to work all that hard. You'll be taken care of (in terms of health coverage, pension). But you'll make a little less than what you would out in the up and down world of private business. Basically, you traded some immediate pay for stability.

Things are much the same now, expect there is no trade off at all.

 

[cdr108]

Why pay more at all? With all the other perks Maggie mentioned (and a few that she didn't) working in the public sector would still be much better than in private, even at the same wages.

While speaking with an older friend of the family the other week, he was telling me that when he was younger, public workers still had the sweet benefits, but got got paid somewhat less than the private equivalent. According to him back in the day the public sector worked like this: Once you're in full time, as long as you don't totally screw up, you pretty much have a job for life. You don't have to work all that hard. You'll be taken care of (in terms of health coverage, pension). But you'll make a little less than what you would out in the up and down world of private business. Basically, you traded some immediate pay for stability.

Things are much the same now, expect there is no trade off at all.

You're right ... it should be that way.

The added job security for life and benefits should result in lower wages.

 

[Dilla]

You're right ... it should be that way.

The added job security for life and benefits should result in lower wages.

It makes sense to me. You don't have to save for your retirement, pay extra medical costs, you get more time off. So even with a little less pay, you could still be ahead of your private equivalent.

EDIT: All I'm saying with this, is that a generation ago, this is the way things worked, and I don't think anyone felt exploited. Plenty of people still wanted to, and did work for the public service, and they're retired now, and doing quite well, thank you very much.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's the stability aspect that breeds the worst complacency. In the public sector, performance evaluations don't matter at all. If you aren't trying for a promotion they are useless. After all, you aren't going to get paid more if you perform better. And you are not going to get promoted if you perform better (since promotions are done through cross-department competitions not through performance evaluations). That leads to a lot of dead wood. There's a ton of workers who are happy doing the bare minimum to keep their jobs, not interested in promotion (which would mean competition), who weigh down productivity. There are a lot of really good workers who excel at what they do, but they generally get frustrated and burned out by carrying the dead wood around. I have seen far too many skilled, hard working colleagues leave the public sector not because of pay or benefits, but out of shear frustration. Meanwhile those who coast through stay behind.

This may happen in some private sector companies, but at least the occasional recession forces them to make hard choices and cut unproductive staff. In the public sector there is no such check. Instead, the government starts swelling the ranks of the civil service every time there is a recession.

Look no further than the fare collector at the TTC station for a picture of everything that's wrong with the public sector in Canada. Would any private sector operation employ a worker costing them 95K a year (pay and benefits and other costs) to collect coins, tokens and little chits of paper, when there are machines costing half as much that do the job twice as efficiently with recurring maintenance costs of 1% of what said booth monkey costs? Yet, the ATU spins this as an issue of 'fairness' claiming that it keeps older and injured workers employed. Yet, shouldn't older workers retire (making way for younger staff) and injured workers be at home recuperating? That whole scenario makes my blood boil.

Forget the private sector. Even in the union paradise of Europe, most subway systems don't employ booth monkeys. Machines collect fares and they have young, well groomed and knowledgable customer service staff to provide directions, tourist information, etc. Here's we settle for some old, often overweight, gruff geezer who gets paid twice as much as those young ladies in Germany and knows half as much about the city. And we accept this, because their union tell us that this is what 'fairness' is....overpaying for substandard service.

 

[Maggie]

So basically your employer has significantly higher labour costs than its competitors with no value added coming from its unionized workforce (that you have admitted to). Must be great for your employer's profitability. Good luck with that plan. I hear it worked out well for the big 3 auto manufacturers.

Well the public sector or private sector can use us or not use us thats their choice. I'm not going to apologize for joining a union all I can say is that I worked in the private sector doing the job I do now and it was mostly a miserable experience. I did not mean to brag of what I do have but I should have said that I am thankful for the experience I got in the private sector. I am glad for unions since they set the bar for the work force. I tried the corporate ladder thing which most do when leaving university and college but soon as you hit a certain age and wonder where their house is and car is you have to reflect on what to do next. Do I agree with what all unions do of course not, same as private corporations their are good one and bad ones.

 

[Brian69]

It's the stability aspect that breeds the worst complacency. In the public sector, performance evaluations don't matter at all. If you aren't trying for a promotion they are useless. After all, you aren't going to get paid more if you perform better. And you are not going to get promoted if you perform better (since promotions are done through cross-department competitions not through performance evaluations). That leads to a lot of dead wood. There's a ton of workers who are happy doing the bare minimum to keep their jobs, not interested in promotion (which would mean competition), who weigh down productivity. There are a lot of really good workers who excel at what they do, but they generally get frustrated and burned out by carrying the dead wood around. I have seen far too many skilled, hard working colleagues leave the public sector not because of pay or benefits, but out of shear frustration. Meanwhile those who coast through stay behind.

Good point. In a nutshell, unions generally value length over service over quality of performance in contracts. Pay raises are so tied into the yearly rollover through bargaining it makes hanging on more important financially than getting ahead. Not to say the private sector doesn't have its own problems but go-getters will have more opportunity to get ahead and shine, whether at their present workplace or at a competing one.

 

[salvius]

Good point. In a nutshell, unions generally value length over service over quality of performance in contracts. Pay raises are so tied into the yearly rollover through bargaining it makes hanging on more important financially than getting ahead. Not to say the private sector doesn't have its own problems but go-getters will have more opportunity to get ahead and shine, whether at their present workplace or at a competing one.

This is NOT my experience.

I think the greatest myth about the private sector is that your work speaks for itself and determines your 'value.'

Yes, 'go-getters' who effectively market themselves, take credit for work of others, and who play golf in order to fit in (and become) the 'old boys' tend to do better, regardless of their actual performance and productivity. I worked in too many places where this occurs to buy into that whole merit thing (though it can happen sometimes).

I've also worked in places that are just as bureaucratic when it comes to raises and promotions, without having any of the union perks.

 

[Brian69]

*shrug*

Well, I will admit it's been awhile since I've been in the private sector but from where I stand (the union) I've seen people who do the bare minimum sliding on by with those of us who care about our job and do better. As far as go-getters are concerned I wasn't talking about brown-nosers or boot-lickers as they tend to get weeded earlier or stuck in their own rut. Perhaps where you are they can hide behind others; where I am everyone (and I do mean everyone) knows who they are.

 

[Dilla]

This is NOT my experience.

I think the greatest myth about the private sector is that your work speaks for itself and determines your 'value.'

Yes, 'go-getters' who effectively market themselves, take credit for work of others, and who play golf in order to fit in (and become) the 'old boys' tend to do better, regardless of their actual performance and productivity. I worked in too many places where this occurs to buy into that whole merit thing (though it can happen sometimes).

I've also worked in places that are just as bureaucratic when it comes to raises and promotions, without having any of the union perks.

The myth is that non-unionized firms are fantastic at making the most of the opportunities presented to them. People are people and loads of mistakes are made. What's not a myth is that unions add yet another layer of rules, regulations, and "old boys" where there already is a lot of it. I mean, it wouldn't hurt you to go golfing with your manager or your shop steward, would it? Also, not being rewarded regardless of their actual performance and productivity is the actual plan explicitly written on paper.

Of course, for the workers the union is often a net benefit despite this, no question. But there's no way you're going to convince me that a workplace which values seniority over all else is going to be as productive as one that tries to reward performance, no matter if they go about it less than sensible ways. That being said, if that's what the union decides, that's their business. In the public sphere, it annoys me that that's the policy, as I'm paying for it.

Yes, 'go-getters' who effectively market themselves, take credit for work of others, and who play golf in order to fit in (and become) the 'old boys' tend to do better, regardless of their actual performance and productivity.

Please, and people in this thread said I was perpetuating the myth of the lazy, surly, union man.

 

[salvius]

Please, and people in this thread said I was perpetuating the myth of the lazy, surly, union man.

The amount of times my immediate superiors have taken credit for my work is too often to count. This complaint is hardly unique to my personal experience, and I don't think those people get weeded out all that often.

Thankfully, doesn't happen in my current job, office is much too small for this kind of BS.

 

[Whoaccio]

Airline union targets Vancouver Olympics for strike
The Globe and Mail
By Brent Jang, The Globe and Mail Posted Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:05 PM ET
Related
News

The Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics have become a bargaining chip at Air Canada as the country's largest airline tries to overcome labour strife and avoid filing for bankruptcy protection.

Air Canada mechanics and technical staff, worried about losing their jobs to El Salvador, narrowly voted down a tentative 21-month labour pact that had been recommended by union negotiators, throwing the cash-strapped carrier's recovery strategy into jeopardy.

Chuck Atkinson, president of the union's District 140, said his members are hoping that the airline will offer job protection in return for labour peace during the Winter Games in February, 2010.

"It might be a black eye for Canada if there were a strike during the Olympics or if Air Canada went into bankruptcy protection before then," Mr. Atkinson said in an interview.

The surprise rejection of the labour pact thwarts Air Canada's plans to ask Ottawa for pension relief and blocks $600-million in loans required to avoid a filing for bankruptcy protection for the second time in six years. Export Development Canada, a federal Crown corporation, had been expected to lend about $250-million to help the airline survive the recession.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers said Wednesday that it will return to the bargaining table later this week, with the aid of federally appointed mediator James Farley, a former Ontario judge.

Members of the IAMAW's largest bargaining unit will be asked to vote again, assuming the mediator is able to persuade management and labour negotiators to agree on a revised collective agreement.

Lorne Hammerberg, president of IAMAW Local 714, said many employees believe Air Canada is ignoring the contentious issue of whether aircraft repairs and maintenance will be shifted to El Salvador, where a sister company of Air Canada operates. Mr. Hammerberg said the union would gain bargaining clout as the Games approach.

"Everybody's focused on the Olympics for a potential strike," he said. "Air Canada is an Olympic sponsor, and our members wonder if it wants the 21-month contract to counter any labour dispute during the Games. It wouldn't be just about Air Canada. All the eyes of the world would be upon us, and a labour disruption would be the last thing both the company and Canadian government would want."

Montreal-based Air Canada declined to comment on a potential walkout, but in a statement, the carrier said that given the voting results, "the company and the IAMAW will meet promptly to discuss next steps in the process."

The "Official Airline" of the 2010 Games needs the support of all of its unions to ask Ottawa for permission to skip a $100-million pension payment due on July 30, another $60-million due on Aug. 14 and suspend further contributions until April 30, 2011. Air Canada faces a $615-million pension bill this year, but wants to defer $355-million of its scheduled contributions.

Vancouver organizers said last night that "it would be inappropriate to comment on internal discussions under way at the airline. Air Canada is a strong partner for the 2010 Winter Games and we have full confidence in their partnership with us."

Air Canada is in talks to borrow $600-million, but the lenders first want assurances that the airline has been granted relief in reducing its $2.9-billion pension solvency deficit, the carrier said in a letter this week to retirees.

"The federal government is concerned about the Air Canada situation and is monitoring it closely," a spokesman for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said in a statement Wednesday night.

The IAMAW's technical, maintenance and operational support unit voted 50.8 per cent against a pact that would have frozen their wages until March 31, 2011. Mechanics, baggage handlers, cargo agents and electricians are part of the unit, which has more than 11,000 members.

The previous six-year labour contract expired Tuesday, and IAMAW negotiators had urged members to ratify the proposed 21-month collective agreement.

But shop stewards in Montreal disagreed, telling employees to vote against the tentative deal. The Montreal district's strong No vote was enough to offset support in other parts of Canada, and the Quebeckers also benefited from a low voter turnout of well under 50 per cent nationally, union sources said.

"Some workers figured if they're going to lose their jobs, they may as well take the company down with them," said one union representative.

Aveos Fleet Performance Inc., formerly named Air Canada Technical Services, has more than 1,400 employees in San Salvador. An Aveos spokesman said in an interview two weeks ago that there are no plans to transfer Air Canada plane repair contracts out of Canada.

Two smaller IAMAW units, with roughly 600 workers combined, overwhelmingly supported their proposed contracts, with finance staff voting 87.5 per cent in favour and clerical workers voting 93.2 per cent to ratify.

While the largest IAMAW unit rejected its tentative deal, if the votes of all three units are combined, then there would be a narrow approval of the pension funding moratorium, said one industry official, warning that a filing for protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act is edging closer.

"If the mechanics refuse to see the facts, the airline might not survive until the Olympics. The easiest thing for management to do is to file for CCAA, but the losers would be the pensioners and employees," the official said.

Two other Air Canada unions, representing customer service agents and dispatchers, have already ratified their 21-month labour agreements. Another two unions, representing pilots and flight attendants, are scheduled to wrap up their ratification votes by mid-July.

This is bloody dumb.

 

[Brian69]

Dumb indeed.

The best bargaining chip of unions is holding the general public or the average city hostage in some way, and the general public can't do a damn thing about it.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Even better if you can hold the nation's reputation hostage....

I can sympathize with their concerns that Air Canada was going to outsource maintenance to a subsidiary unit in El Salvador. However, using the Olympics as a bargaining chip is still dirty.

 

[Disparishun]

I've also worked in places that are just as bureaucratic when it comes to raises and promotions, without having any of the union perks.

Right. But, if you're still comparing private and public sector work, the difference is that the private sector firm which is bureaucratic and inefficient gets left behind because it can't compete.