Unions!

[mangasparky]

Alfransen,

Clearly higher taxes can't be a point of arguement for giving workers a raise that is barely over the point of cost of living. Workers will only organize if they feel they are not being paid for what they are worth.

The fact that employers are terrified and will pay to keep an organization from happening is a good thing. Unfortunatley, they will pay just barely enough to keep their workers quiet.

It is unfortunate that strikes happen that affect the public, but they do need to happen. In high percentage of cases, strikes will increase the quality of life for workers and workers that will follow behind them.

I find your point about any decent union job being difficult to get. You state that a long waiting list is a sure sign the position is massively over compensated. This is untrue, this is a sign that other similar jobs that are non union(across the board) are massively under compensated.

I am part of the IBEW. I have heard many examples of employers taking advantage of their workers on the non union side. Paying skilled workers 50% less, giving the do what I say or your fired ultimatum, raises that don't seem to happen, no benifits or pension, no training programs, unsafe work conditions, workers that are fearful of losing their jobs, not being compensated for using their own vehicle, not registering apprentices but saying that they have, using labourers to do skilled work, not paying overtime when it is legally due, and these are just off the top of my head.

In my line of work, the union produces highly skilled workers that are knowledgable and safe. There is a vast gaping hole between the value of a union worker and non-union.

 

[Hydrogen]

I have nothing against Unions...

Your record on this subject suggests otherwise.

They become bloated, corrupt and inefficient and only care about themselves.

Just as you care only about yourself and your interests.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a union. As for excess, one can find such things in any organization. To suggest that it is a quality to be found only in unions is simply silly and narrow-minded.

They easily cause higher taxes due the fact they causes massive unsustainable increases to the city expenses. The difference between the revenue and the expenses is thus usually made up on the backs of people who do not enjoy the luxury of these unions.

Did it ever occur to you that cuts to transit funding created problems for the TTC? You are fixed solely on the people of one organization. If you want to actually understand the problem you might want to put aside the blinkers for a moment to see that public transit system infrastructure across the province suffered in order to hold taxes down at other levels of government. Given that situation, the TTC did quite well.

Public transit systems are public, so they receive funding from public sources. That's not just here. You'll find that around the world.

Imo I could care less how much you need to live. I want better service. Your life or the token collectors desires are not my concern. Also all of the TTC workers do not live in condos/Apartments downtown. They all are over the place.

I couldn't care less how much you need, either, but I was not talking about that. As for your demands about better service, you appear to be under the misconception that less public revenue will result in better service. As I have told you, budgets to transit systems were reduced over many years (cut, made smaller - get it?). The TTC relied more than any transit system on collected fares and had to make due with that - all the while keeping the system affordable. You are so seduced by your beliefs that all money went to unions that you can't even see (or simply won't bother to see) that the entire system was starved of cash in order to get what you want - lower taxes. Then you bitch that you are not getting your idealized service, and demand that others take pay cuts. You make no sense.

The things is if there was better service and cleaner stations, I could care less how much anyone is being payed or how well they are managed.

And that's your problem. You simply have no desire to understand the larger context - or can't.

I may have so called High standards but imo this city is flush with money and its being thrown all in the drain and being gobbled up by all these unions.

Again, another unsupported statement - founded solely on your hate for unions. But then you admit to not paying any attention to anything beyond your own demands. Talking about selfish.

Sure we will get all of this money for infrastructure. I agree the city has been shortchanged but its mostly its own fault.

Yet another factually unsupported statement. Did you miss the 1990's?

 

[Patrick Smyth]

Bottlenecks

The fellow serves to highlight one of the challenges of a democratic system. He gets to vote and we must deal with the outcome of it all.

One of the problems today is that a number on Council act like this too. Instead of doing the job we gave them - to make the City work better - they spend their time carping on about "Miller, the left and unions". The most active in that area are the least productive, over-paid and intellectually lazy.

So many have tried to highlight the need for municipal change but to no avail. Does this signal the death of the community-minded activist? What could still be done to bring the focus back closer to the top where all the bottlenecks hang out?

 

[afransen]

Sparky: it is clear that the problem is not non-union positions are undercompensated in general. If every job paid what union jobs paid, inflation would destroy the real wage of union jobs. The only way for jobs to pay more across the board in real terms is for there to be increases in productivity. Unions often impede increases in labour productivity.

Yes, some people are mistreated or treated illegally by their employer. This happens in both union and non-union situations. Unions also mistreat their members, as the interests of the union leadership do not always align with those of their members (unions are large corporations with the goal of extracting dues from members--all else is a means to this end).

And I find it impressive that you're defending the sometimes positively disgusting behaviour of striking union members in going out of their way to punish the general public. This is especially true in the public sector, such as the OC Transpo union which is currently striking. The inconvenience of finding alternate modes of transport is enough to put pressure on their employer. They go farther and place pickets with the goal of preventing people from using alternate modes of transportation (driving, walking, etc.).

Then there are situations like the municipal union during the last garbage strike in Toronto, preventing people from bringing their waste to transfer stations and creating a dangerous health risk.

Then there are the employees of the Big Three, who seem to think that the people of Canada owe them a job, and that they deserve to be paid above-market wages, subsidized out of the public till.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I could care less if the ROM security guard is getting paid $100.00 an hour.

But you go there every 5 years and pay the $22 admission right? Or do you have access to free admission?

That admission fee directly goes towards paying that security guard his $20 or $100 an hour job. Much the same way that your TTC fare goes directly towards paying the driver/ticket taker/etc. Surely if we slashed the salary paid to the security guard we could reduce the admission fee and thus attract more patronage, right?

That appears to be the crux of your argument against the TTC union

 

[Urban Shocker]

Jobs that pay good wages attract the most skilled workers - better compensated union jobs being a good example. The underpaid jobs, in the private sector, don't attract the most skilled talent.

 

[afransen]

I doubt that the TTC is a meritocracy. Unions almost always operate on seniority, not merit. It's all designed so that the stronger members of the union carry the weak ones, and discouraging effort (so as not to make your colleagues look bad in comparison).

 

[cdr108]

CAW won't accept strike ban for bailout money

http://business.theglobeandmail.com...090109.wcawnostrike0109/BNStory/Business/home


The Canadian Press

January 9, 2009 at 1:27 PM EST

TORONTO — The president of the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) says his union won't accept a ban on strikes similar to one detailed in the U.S. as a condition of $17.4-billion (U.S.) in loans to Chrysler and General Motors Corp.

Ken Lewenza said the CAW has not yet been informed of any conditions attached to $4-billion (Canadian) the federal and Ontario governments have agreed to lend to Chrysler and GM.

But he says he was “shocked†to hear about a U.S. provision that automatically places the two companies in default if union workers go on strike.

A General Motors Corp. filing this week with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission detailed the provision banning strikes as part of its $13.4-billion (U.S.) in federal loans.

A person briefed on Chrysler LLC's $4-billion loan, who didn't want to be identified because the company is in talks with the United Auto Workers (UAW) about concessions, confirmed Thursday that the Chrysler deal also has a similar provision.

The UAW isn't a party to the deal and hasn't threatened a strike, its most potent weapon against the Detroit auto makers.

“It's just one more indication that the Republican party not only wants to challenge the strength of the [United Auto Workers], they want to take away every tool we may have in our arsenal to defend the interests of our members,†Mr. Lewenza said in an interview.

He said a similar provision in Canada would simply “add fuel to the fire†in an industry that has been beset by tens of thousands of job losses in recent years.

“I would be incredibly disappointed if the government dictated that as a condition because I think that violates our collective bargaining rights as protected by law,†Mr. Lewenza said. “We won't accept it – simple as that.â€

The Canadian and U.S. governments agreed to provide billions in emergency loans to the beleaguered auto makers after they warned they could go bankrupt without financial help.

 

[afransen]

“I would be incredibly disappointed if the government dictated that as a condition because I think that violates our collective bargaining rights as protected by law,†Mr. Lewenza said. “We won't accept it – simple as that.â€

BS. They don't have the legal right for their employer to be kept solvent. They still have the right to strike, yet they must know that striking has consequences.

 

[Whoaccio]

Good God! Only 32.5 sick days per employee?!? Damn you robber baron province! Let my people go!

TORONTO — Ontario's correctional officers are bracing for a potential strike, and if it ends up being anything like the 51-day labour dispute of 2002, life inside the province's jails could become exceedingly ugly in a few weeks.

The workers provide an essential service and can't walk off the job entirely, but the last time the Ontario Public Service Employees Union went on strike, staffing levels in the corrections system were minimal and chaos was common.

The union claimed that managers who stepped in as replacements weren't up to the task and blamed them for an inmate's death, rioting and escapes.

The union also said desperate managers mollified inmates with pizza, pornography and cigarettes in exchange for good behaviour.

The government countered that some workers were withholding food for as long as 19 hours at a time and refused to provide insulin and other medication to inmates.

Government officials also said officers antagonized inmates, threatened managers and did everything they could to make their jobs even harder, including honking horns to disrupt their sleep and tying up phone lines with prank calls.

At one point, former Conservative correctional services minister Rob Sampson mused about firing them and hiring replacement workers.

“I understand the objective of a union when it strikes is to be disruptive,†Mr. Sampson said at the time.

“Unfortunately, I think they've gone way, way past the usual shenanigans one might see in a strike environment and have started to jeopardize and threaten ... the lives of people running the institution and the inmates.â€

A spokeswoman for Rick Bartolucci, the current minister of community safety and correctional services, said the government has “contingencies to deal with a number of situations related to work stoppages.â€

Workers are mobilizing as well, with blogs and a Facebook group, and the rhetoric has turned angry and nasty.

While the Conservative government was demonized for stripping services from the correctional system and embracing the idea of privatization, the Liberals haven't been much better, said Eduardo Almeida, chairman of the union's corrections committee.

“We've been hearing for years this is a different government, but it's like the Who song Won't Get Fooled Again: ‘Meet the new boss, same as the old boss,â€' he said.

“The government is showing again their lack of respect for corrections as a law enforcement agency.â€

The union will vote on its latest contract offer at the end of the month, but members are being told they should reject it.

The union is furious with proposed cutbacks to sick time, which follow a report from the provincial auditor-general that noted correctional officers used an average of 32.5 sick days in 2007, up 63 per cent from 2001.

Mr. Almeida admitted there is likely some abuse of sick time, but he said in most cases the numbers aren't being inflated and reflect the stressful, dangerous nature of the job.

“We're constantly breaking up fights, there's blood and biohazard around everywhere,†he said.

“They're figuring they're not going to have to pay my members to be sick, but my members are still going to be sick, my members are still going to be off and that's not going to stop.â€

A spokesman for Government Services Minister Ted McMeekin said paying for sick days in 2007 cost $20-million in overtime, and the government needs to save some of that money given the state of the economy.

“We believe the request to lower absenteeism and the associated costs is fair and reasonable for both the corrections officers and the people of Ontario,†said spokesman Greg Dennis.

It seems inevitable that a strike will happen unless something drastic happens soon — and a strike won't be pretty, Mr. Almeida said.

“Under any normal conditions, jails are horrible, let alone when you start to go into essential service,†he said.

“Jails are already notoriously understaffed, and to go and suddenly have somebody working a unit by themselves and having management try and assist or help out will be horrible.â€

The John Howard Society of Ontario says inmates are the forgotten victims during a strike, and the terrible living conditions they already deal with will certainly worsen.

“We know prisons are places where there's already tensions, there are issues already occurring, and a strike only makes it worse,†said executive director Paula Osmok.

“Essentially the prisoners were in lockdown for most of the time of the strike (in 2002). Access to the yard didn't really happen, and visits with family members and lawyers were affected.â€

She said the public may not have much sympathy for inmates, but they should.

“It may not seem like a big deal to have standards drop or rights violated for that particular population but ... I think it's a slippery slope nce we start to condone those sorts of things.â€

 

[cdr108]

Holy crap .... $20 million in overtime could hire an additional 300 correctional officers @ $65K/year.

If conditions are so stressful, which I believe they can be, then they should hire more people. But I suppose the union won't let them do it, and perpetuate the OT; hence more stress.

Vicious cycle!

 

[jks]

OMG, 32.5 sick days!! That's crazy! That's...worse than the TTC?? That really makes me feel better though

 

[Whoaccio]

Granted, this isn't Canadian, but it is a prime example of how public sector unions can disadvantage society at large and, paradoxically, disadvantage low income citizens the most. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the City maintain a similar policy forcing it to pay premiums for contract labor?

President Obama said in his Inaugural Address yesterday that government must spend to rebuild roads and bridges, but that those "who manage the public's dollars" must also "spend wisely" and "reform bad habits." With that ambition in mind, here's an idea to save tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in the months ahead: Repeal Davis-Bacon superminimum wage requirements for construction projects.

We're referring to the 1931 law that requires contractors on all federal projects to pay a "prevailing wage." In practice, this means paying the highest union wage in every part of the country. Over the years nearly every analysis -- by the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office and Office of Management and Budget -- has concluded that Davis-Bacon tangles projects in red tape and inflates federal construction costs.

A 2008 study by Suffolk University and the Beacon Hill Institute examined local wage data for construction workers and found that the Department of Labor estimates for the "prevailing wage" in cities are about 22% above the actual wages paid in these cities. It estimates that Davis-Bacon adds slightly less than 10% to federal building costs, or $8.4 billion a year.

Davis-Bacon was devised in part as a way to keep blacks and immigrants from federal construction projects during the Depression. Nowadays its impact is mainly to reward unions for political campaign support, though it still does have some racial implications. A 2001 study by labor economists Daniel Kessler and Lawrence Katz examined state Davis-Bacon-type laws for the National Bureau of Economic Research and concluded: "Repeal is associated with a sizeable reduction in the union wage premium and a significant narrowing of the black/nonblack wage differential for construction workers."

George W. Bush briefly suspended Davis-Bacon during the Gulf Coast clean-up after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But the unions howled that immigrant workers were filling the reconstruction jobs at lower wages. So under intense pressure from Members of Congress in both political parties, Mr. Bush backed down.

The savings for taxpayers from waiving Davis-Bacon would be even greater amid the staggering new spending contemplated for the stimulus bill. Let's say Congress spends $400 billion over the next two years on roads, mass transit or other construction. Assuming only a 10% cost savings -- the lower end of economic estimates -- would mean about $40 billion in lower spending for the same projects. Congress could either forego that spending, which would mean a smaller claim on future taxpayers, or it could spend that money to fund more projects that would hire more workers.

The draft stimulus bill we've seen explicitly mentions that Davis-Bacon rules must apply. But Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) says he'll offer an amendment on the Senate floor to suspend those rules for stimulus spending. This would seem to be exactly the kind of liberation from "worn out dogmas" that Mr. Obama called for yesterday. If he wants to send an early message that this really is a new era -- and save taxpayers a bundle too -- the new President need merely put in a good word for Mr. DeMint's effort.

 

[jks]

I think the biggest issue with unions at the present time is the YorkU strike. How long has it been going on now?? Two months?? What does this union want. By asking for more, for the university to accept, the tuition fees would have to rise even more. I think that's appaling. This union is wasting lots of the students' time. I think McGuinty should pass a "Back to work" legislation. Unfortunately, as one worker pointed out, that would mean an all out war.

 

[Automation Gallery]

I think the biggest issue with unions at the present time is the YorkU strike. How long has it been going on now?? Two months?? What does this union want. By asking for more, for the university to accept, the tuition fees would have to rise even more. I think that's appaling. This union is wasting lots of the students' time. I think McGuinty should pass a "Back to work" legislation. Unfortunately, as one worker pointed out, that would mean an all out war.

76 days and counting.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/574478