Unions!

[salvius]

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.

HA! I guess that's nice in theory, but far from the truth.

This is one of Canada's major insurers. Let me tell ya, they are going nowhere; hilariously, they would often complain about government's bureaucracy and I would think are you people blind????

 

[afransen]

HA! I guess that's nice in theory, but far from the truth.

This is one of Canada's major insurers. Let me tell ya, they are going nowhere; hilariously, they would often complain about government's bureaucracy and I would think are you people blind????

Private firms can be as inefficient as they like--that's for their shareholders and employees to worry about. When it's the government, I have a huge problem with it.

 

[kEiThZ]

I love how public sector union abuses are defended using apparent private sector labour issues. If the private sector needs improvement why are unions targeting the public sector? Why should taxpayers pay for the perceived mistakes of private companies with higher wages in the public sector. Where's the sense in that?

 

[Disparishun]

HA! I guess that's nice in theory, but far from the truth.

With which part do you disagree -- that private-sector businesses have an incentive to be efficient in order to compete with other businesses that do the same thing, or that the public sector is a monopoly?

 

[salvius]

With which part do you disagree -- that private-sector businesses have an incentive to be efficient in order to compete with other businesses that do the same thing, or that the public sector is a monopoly?

I disagree with the section in bold "the difference is that the private sector firm which is bureaucratic and inefficient gets left behind because it can't compete."

These guys are one of the top insurance firms in Canada. Their tangled bureaucracy surely long predates my time with them, and I'm sure things haven't changed much since. What's more -- they're not going anywhere. Finally, I doubt that they're the only private firm with a tangled bureaucracy, and that this is the only oćupational sector where it happens.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Once again what is the relationship between the failings of some private companies and the public sector which already provides wages and benefits well beyond anything in the private sector (even to its non-unionized staff).

 

[salvius]

^ Once again what is the relationship between the failings of some private companies and the public sector which already provides wages and benefits well beyond anything in the private sector (even to its non-unionized staff).

Where was I making that relationship, and why do I need to make this relationship?

I think it's pretty clear what part of Disparishun's comment I had a problem with. I even bolded it for easy understanding.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Just like the socialist drivel Laz put up, I think you are trying to divert discussion away from the failings of unions (obvious in the public sector) by dredging up vague unsubstantiated examples of private sector excess. That's evasive.

 

[salvius]

^ Just like the socialist drivel Laz put up, I think you are trying to divert discussion away from the failings of unions (obvious in the public sector) by dredging up vague unsubstantiated examples of private sector excess. That's evasive.

As far as I can see, the discussion about the failings of unions has also turned into gross stereotyping of private sector efficiency and opportunity.

There is nothing 'vague' or 'unsubstantiated' about red tape and it happens in many large (and some mid-size) companies, and it does not mean that they are doomed to failure.

Similarly, working hard and being a 'go getter' in the private sector doesn't mean you'll strike it rich, or that your effort will necessarily be recognized, or that 'one's work speaks for itself'. These are freakish simplifications of reality. What's evasive against disagreeing with this, exactly?

 

[lordmandeep]

The whole point is public sector unions screws us all
Private sector unions only screws over a few.

 

[kEiThZ]

As far as I can see, the discussion about the failings of unions has also turned into gross stereotyping of private sector efficiency and opportunity.

I think you are reading something into the thread that is not there. Most of us here supported specific examples where privatization could lead to improved productivity (trash collection being a good example). Nobody here supports privatization on mere principle. I have long argued that as long as it makes fiscal sense and is not an essential service then it should be privatized.....fiscal sense being the key condition. If the private sector can't do it more efficiently than the service should be kept in-house.

There is nothing 'vague' or 'unsubstantiated' about red tape and it happens in many large (and some mid-size) companies, and it does not mean that they are doomed to failure.

It may not doom them to failure, but it does not destine them for great success either. Inefficient bureaucracy anywhere is a threat to productivity everywhere. When it happens in the private sector, however, they pay for it, not the taxpayer.

Similarly, working hard and being a 'go getter' in the private sector doesn't mean you'll strike it rich, or that your effort will necessarily be recognized, or that 'one's work speaks for itself'. These are freakish simplifications of reality.

On this I'll agree...and you'll not I never backed the whole 'go into business on your own' line of thought. I wholly agree that there are jobs that are not suited to making a killing in the private sector.

What's evasive against disagreeing with this, exactly?

It's quite evasive to go from disagreeing that entrepreneurship is the solution to all labour problems, to suggesting that the private sector is completely wasteful because of your experience at one private sector employer. That's evasive and just as bad as anyone who would suggest that the government sector is completely chocked full of waste.

My issue with private sector unions is that many times they don't seem all that different from their targets. They love to complain about the greed of their employers without ever pausing to even question their own greed. They will push their demands and run the companies they work for into the ground and then demand government bailouts to 'protect the workers' (which should have been their job in the first place). Yet, for all that, it's their own business. Waste in the private sector, from the employer or the union hurts the company's profitability and that's a issue for the board and the shareholders to sort out. And if the union pushes the company to the brink they will be the first to suffer....and that's why there are a number of private sector unions that are actually quite well behaved. In the public sector though, me and you are paying for inefficiencies caused by the city's management and unionized staff who aren't as productive. Do you honestly believe that there is nothing wrong with paying someone 50 000 a year to collect tokens when a 5000 dollar machine could do the job 24 hrs a day, without breaks?

 

[Disparishun]

I disagree with the section in bold "the difference is that the private sector firm which is bureaucratic and inefficient gets left behind because it can't compete."

These guys are one of the top insurance firms in Canada. Their tangled bureaucracy surely long predates my time with them, and I'm sure things haven't changed much since. What's more -- they're not going anywhere. Finally, I doubt that they're the only private firm with a tangled bureaucracy, and that this is the only oćupational sector where it happens.

You've confused two different things. You're talking about being perfectly efficient. I'm talking about being more efficient than the next guy, so that you don't get swallowed up. Can you see how these things are different -- and how windmilling against imperfection as a fatal flaw is not a convincing argument?

 

[cdr108]

I disagree with the section in bold "the difference is that the private sector firm which is bureaucratic and inefficient gets left behind because it can't compete."

These guys are one of the top insurance firms in Canada. Their tangled bureaucracy surely long predates my time with them, and I'm sure things haven't changed much since. What's more -- they're not going anywhere. Finally, I doubt that they're the only private firm with a tangled bureaucracy, and that this is the only oćupational sector where it happens.

you've actually made the case of inefficiencies b/c of monopolies.

insurance and financial institutions have a monopoly in Canada so they become less efficient; just as labour/services performed by City employees represented by unions in public sectors.

i've lost count of how many times when i was in university or during my summer vacations i've seen public works staff standing around doing nothing even though alot of things need to be done; and i doubt they were all taking coffee breaks, unless those breaks are 30 minutes long.

 

[salvius]

you've actually made the case of inefficiencies b/c of monopolies.

insurance and financial institutions have a monopoly in Canada so they become less efficient; just as labour/services performed by City employees represented by unions in public sectors.

Insurance industry in Canada is not a monopoly, seeing as how there are dozens and dozens of companies providing insurance services. There is a partial monopoly in the banking/finance industry -- it does not really apply to insurance in the same way, aside from the fact that it is a fairly regulated field (but which one isn't?) and there is some service overlap.

Some insurers are indeed large multinationals (as was the one I worked for), but since there are other large multi-nationals also in business, they cannot be considered monopolies.

I agree that these corporations posses capital and wealth that makes it very difficult to compete with them and are therefore somewhat oligopolistic in nature.

 

[tkip]

To be fair.....

"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."

This above quote from someone else on this board does point out the true beyond moronic union rule that I hate with a passion. Senority. You can get a position if you have the senority. Nothing to do with attendance, work performance and so on.

I'm a union person and support them but this sort of thing is certainly one that pisses off people to no end and doesn't make an ounce of sense in my book. It's not based in reality. It needs to change.

I really think that union members not coming to work on time or performing up to par should either be penalized through suspensions or face a reduction in pay within the workplace. You sign unto the position with the understanding that if you don't perform, you face penalties.

Make $19/hr but always late and goof on the job, fine. After several warnings and getting nowhere we'l drop your hourly rate down a few dollars/hr for a period of time until you get the message.

And it's true.... I see daily the people who get away with murder and they're untouchable. There needs to be accountability and having inviduals face the music when they come to work and expect to do nothing.