No party affiliation
Posts: 1,601 
Location: Oshawa
Location: Oshawa
October 2nd, 2007, 05:55 PM
Avro
Quoting lone wolf
The union is comprised of employees, stop trying to make them different entities and teachers aren't over paid by a long shot, I suppose a University education dosen't justify 80,000 a year when many could do better in the private sector in another field.
It's certainly not a calling any more - except maybe the call of money.
Odd how a Union will meddle in the affairs between employer and employee, stifle production and interfere with company revenues, then blame corporate greed when the source goes to Mexico or China ... or make the cost of education so great that kids suffer.
Wolf
Odd how a Union will meddle in the affairs between employer and employee, stifle production and interfere with company revenues, then blame corporate greed when the source goes to Mexico or China ... or make the cost of education so great that kids suffer.
Wolf
Avro
No party affiliation
Posts: 1,601
Location: Oshawa
Location: Oshawa
October 2nd, 2007, 06:00 PM
Quoting karrie
I believe Kreskin can stand up for himself without you coming to the rescue. All he or you had to do was ask why I thought that way but instead you said something in which you cannot defend and then proceeded to defend it by saying it was not your intent to reply but to point out my glib response to something that you were not even a part of.
You asked for proof when I posted a glib reply to point out how meaningless YOUR glib reply was. If you want depth from others, provide depth yourself first. If you want to post a one liner like "Completely untrue", don't expect others to provide more than you do.
my statement stands... provide 'proof' of your statement, and I'll take the time with mine too.
Otherwise we'll leave it at "completely untrue" and, "no, Kreskin's right". lol.
my statement stands... provide 'proof' of your statement, and I'll take the time with mine too.
Otherwise we'll leave it at "completely untrue" and, "no, Kreskin's right". lol.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posts: 6,543 
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
October 2nd, 2007, 06:01 PM
Public forum.
If you didn't want people to respond you could have either not posted or PMd it.
Public forum.
If you didn't want people to respond you could have either not posted or PMd it.
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 5,489
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
October 2nd, 2007, 06:02 PM
Wolf
Quoting Avro
They ARE different entities. No two people are alike, nor to two people have the same work ethic. Unions guarantee slackers get a free ride on the backs of workers in any profession.
The union is comprised of employees, stop trying to make them different entities and teachers aren't over paid by a long shot, I suppose a University education dosen't justify 80,000 a year when many could do better in the private sector in another field.
Avro
Avro
Wolf
Council Member
Posts: 2,054
October 2nd, 2007, 06:07 PM
Many employers prefer a union environment, because it stipulates rules that apply equally and to all, and it's much simpler for the employer to manage.
Want to leave early? Too bad, against the rules.
How many days off do you get for a funeral? It's all in the rules.
It's far easier than treating each employee differently, and then suffering from the jealousy and petty stupidity that comes with it.
To the original poster (Karrie???), I have a question. If you walk up to your employer, and as a stand alone person, ask to be hired at your current salary, WITH ALL OF YOUR CURRENT BENEFITS, what do you think would happen? That's right, you'd be laughed at, and you'd be offered the least that the employer thinks you would take. Or they'd hire the next person who would take it. There's always somebody who will work for less. No pension? No vacation?
Do you know there are lots of areas in the US where you get NO paid vacation, and can be fired at will for no reason? Do you think that's ever abused?????
And I'm NOT pro-union, I don't belong to one, never did, never will, I work in a profession in private industry.
But I'm not blind to what I see.
Many employers prefer a union environment, because it stipulates rules that apply equally and to all, and it's much simpler for the employer to manage.
Want to leave early? Too bad, against the rules.
How many days off do you get for a funeral? It's all in the rules.
It's far easier than treating each employee differently, and then suffering from the jealousy and petty stupidity that comes with it.
To the original poster (Karrie???), I have a question. If you walk up to your employer, and as a stand alone person, ask to be hired at your current salary, WITH ALL OF YOUR CURRENT BENEFITS, what do you think would happen? That's right, you'd be laughed at, and you'd be offered the least that the employer thinks you would take. Or they'd hire the next person who would take it. There's always somebody who will work for less. No pension? No vacation?
Do you know there are lots of areas in the US where you get NO paid vacation, and can be fired at will for no reason? Do you think that's ever abused?????
And I'm NOT pro-union, I don't belong to one, never did, never will, I work in a profession in private industry.
But I'm not blind to what I see.
No party affiliation
Posts: 1,601
Location: Oshawa
Location: Oshawa
October 2nd, 2007, 06:08 PM
Avro
Quoting lone wolf
Wrong again, while I will agree slackers do benefit from those that work it is not exclusive to unions as i have witnessed and if at any time the workers of any given union don't like it they can dump it. In most cases the problem with a union is the majority never go to meeting to vote because the hockey game is on or they may miss their favorite show. Apathy has created this problem one in which also effects general elctions if you look at the amount of elegible voters who bother to show up at the polls.
They ARE different entities. No two people are alike, nor to two people have the same work ethic. Unions guarantee slackers get a free ride on the backs of workers in any profession.
Wolf
Wolf
Avro
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 5,489
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
October 2nd, 2007, 06:12 PM
Am I wrong for believing people are members of a Union - but they are NOT the Union?
Wolf
Quoting Avro
Maybe they just don't give a damn because the Union is going to do what the Union wants to do no matter what the membership says. I have seen too many power trippy unions. Teamsters come to mind big, bold and ugly...
Wrong again, while I will agree slackers do benefit from those that work it is not exclusive to unions as i have witnessed and if at any time the workers of any given union don't like it they can dump it. In most cases the problem with a union is the majority never go to meeting to vote because the hockey game is on or they may miss their favorite show. Apathy has created this problem one in which also effects general elctions if you look at the amount of elegible voters who bother to show up at the polls.
Avro
Avro
Am I wrong for believing people are members of a Union - but they are NOT the Union?
Wolf
No party affiliation
Posts: 1,601
Location: Oshawa
Location: Oshawa
October 2nd, 2007, 06:23 PM
Even look at the name of CUPE
Canadian union of public employees.
The people are the union the leaders of the union are put there by them and any and every policy is voted for by the employees, in fact the union leaders are also employees, ours is a locksmith.
Avro
Quoting lone wolf
I repeat, the union is comprised of employees and eveything that they do is voted on.
Maybe they just don't give a damn because the Union is going to do what the Union wants to do no matter what the membership says. I have seen too many power trippy unions. Teamsters come to mind big, bold and ugly...
Am I wrong for believing people are members of a Union - but they are NOT the Union?
Wolf
Am I wrong for believing people are members of a Union - but they are NOT the Union?
Wolf
Even look at the name of CUPE
Canadian union of public employees.
The people are the union the leaders of the union are put there by them and any and every policy is voted for by the employees, in fact the union leaders are also employees, ours is a locksmith.
Avro
October 2nd, 2007, 10:27 PM
Quoting TenPenny
That's exactly what I did. I offerd to teach a course. No money was discussed
To the original poster (Karrie???), I have a question. If you walk up to your employer, and as a stand alone person, ask to be hired at your current salary, WITH ALL OF YOUR CURRENT BENEFITS, what do you think would happen?
Quote:
I work 4.5 hours per week. There are no bennies. No pension, no vacation, nada. And I am at the lowest end of the pay scale because I've only been there a year. Im quite happy with that. In fact, I'd still do the job for half what they pay me.
That's right, you'd be laughed at, and you'd be offered the least that the employer thinks you would take. Or they'd hire the next person who would take it. There's always somebody who will work for less. No pension? No vacation?
October 2nd, 2007, 10:59 PM
About 25 years ago I erroneously accepted a nomination for shop steward where I worked. What a joke that was. The staff were a bunch of unproductive space wasters (I was likely one of them). Once a month or so the union boss would come out and we'd meet with the executive. The union guy would talk about the membership like they were angels from heaven whom the execs should be ever so grateful for. The grievances would be presented. They were fighting things like a warning letter to a janitor caught sleeping (more like passed out). The place eventually closed because it was unmanageable.
About 25 years ago I erroneously accepted a nomination for shop steward where I worked. What a joke that was. The staff were a bunch of unproductive space wasters (I was likely one of them). Once a month or so the union boss would come out and we'd meet with the executive. The union guy would talk about the membership like they were angels from heaven whom the execs should be ever so grateful for. The grievances would be presented. They were fighting things like a warning letter to a janitor caught sleeping (more like passed out). The place eventually closed because it was unmanageable.
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
October 3rd, 2007, 08:21 AM
Unions have a quite important place in society as can be learned by tracing their history. In recent times the freedom to associate in such a manner has been whittled down and the association itself has come under much fire. Canada shows signs of this when one looks at currently decreasing levels of non-wage benefits, such as employer sponsored medical insurance or RRSP's. Our unions have lost power and our employees are losing benefits.
Many people complain that unions are outdated because of globalization: the company can just move the business to a more union-hostile nation. This highlights how union's have failed to keep with the times: multinational corporations vs. locally organized unions = no power in the hands of the unions. Unions need to associate across borders and demand more labor mobility and equal treatment of employees regardless of factory locations. A corporation seeking to market its products in North America should not be allowed to manufacture in locations where association is not permitted amongst workers. "We'll just move the company to Mexico," signifies the need for stronger unions in Mexico, not weaker unions in Canada.
There are always anecdotal stories about unions protecting a lazy worker just as there are always stories about non-unionized employees being terrorized by management. This of course simply represents a typical over reaction to free-riding. Unions too are guilty of overreacting to free riding, since a union is merely one form of association, it should never be mandatory: one should want to join for the good of the cause rather than the obligation of some contract.
Employees whose jobs are based on commission provide a good example of the vulnerability of non-unionized employees. If a traffic accident, such as a falling tree or a running moose, were to leave a commissioned worker unable to work, and if said worker was the sole provider of their[sic] family, that would be a tragedy. Many unions seek to provide such fundamental assistance to people, who due to their lone career, are vulnerable to job loss.
In Canada, unions have achieved some of this at the provincial and national level. The universal health coverage we do have is due to the lobbying of unions starting from Saskatchewan. The minimum wage can be viewed as a union related issue also.
Again, I would like to highlight how the major drawback is the contractual obligation of union membership. This is of course a protection clause, meant to stop the employer from implementing policy to punish unionization, but there are better mechanisms.
Apologies for the rant level of that post.
Unions have a quite important place in society as can be learned by tracing their history. In recent times the freedom to associate in such a manner has been whittled down and the association itself has come under much fire. Canada shows signs of this when one looks at currently decreasing levels of non-wage benefits, such as employer sponsored medical insurance or RRSP's. Our unions have lost power and our employees are losing benefits.
Many people complain that unions are outdated because of globalization: the company can just move the business to a more union-hostile nation. This highlights how union's have failed to keep with the times: multinational corporations vs. locally organized unions = no power in the hands of the unions. Unions need to associate across borders and demand more labor mobility and equal treatment of employees regardless of factory locations. A corporation seeking to market its products in North America should not be allowed to manufacture in locations where association is not permitted amongst workers. "We'll just move the company to Mexico," signifies the need for stronger unions in Mexico, not weaker unions in Canada.
There are always anecdotal stories about unions protecting a lazy worker just as there are always stories about non-unionized employees being terrorized by management. This of course simply represents a typical over reaction to free-riding. Unions too are guilty of overreacting to free riding, since a union is merely one form of association, it should never be mandatory: one should want to join for the good of the cause rather than the obligation of some contract.
Employees whose jobs are based on commission provide a good example of the vulnerability of non-unionized employees. If a traffic accident, such as a falling tree or a running moose, were to leave a commissioned worker unable to work, and if said worker was the sole provider of their[sic] family, that would be a tragedy. Many unions seek to provide such fundamental assistance to people, who due to their lone career, are vulnerable to job loss.
In Canada, unions have achieved some of this at the provincial and national level. The universal health coverage we do have is due to the lobbying of unions starting from Saskatchewan. The minimum wage can be viewed as a union related issue also.
Again, I would like to highlight how the major drawback is the contractual obligation of union membership. This is of course a protection clause, meant to stop the employer from implementing policy to punish unionization, but there are better mechanisms.
Apologies for the rant level of that post.
Council Member
Posts: 2,054
October 3rd, 2007, 09:01 AM
Interesting that many people have been ranting about how useless unions are, yet many people also are upset at the way protestors at, say, the G8 meetings are treated. Pepper spray? Police 'infiltrating' the crowd, trying to stir up violence?
That would never happen during a labour dispute in modern Canada, would it?
Hmmm.
Interesting that many people have been ranting about how useless unions are, yet many people also are upset at the way protestors at, say, the G8 meetings are treated. Pepper spray? Police 'infiltrating' the crowd, trying to stir up violence?
That would never happen during a labour dispute in modern Canada, would it?
Hmmm.
October 3rd, 2007, 09:04 AM
Quoting TenPenny
I don't get what police tactics during protests (of any sort), has to do with whether or not unions as individual entities (rather than one labor board) are still needed in this day and age.
Interesting that many people have been ranting about how useless unions are, yet many people also are upset at the way protestors at, say, the G8 meetings are treated. Pepper spray? Police 'infiltrating' the crowd, trying to stir up violence?
That would never happen during a labour dispute in modern Canada, would it?
Hmmm.
That would never happen during a labour dispute in modern Canada, would it?
Hmmm.
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
October 3rd, 2007, 09:09 AM
Quoting karrie
Employers still have more bargaining power than an individual employee. Employee's only hopes are to unionize. Unions need presence at the national level to sway national and international labour laws. Their presence at this level is being averted in an undemocratic fashion, which ultimately reaffirms the superiority of employer bargaining power over employee bargaining power.
I don't get what police tactics during protests (of any sort), has to do with whether or not unions as individual entities (rather than one labor board) are still needed in this day and age.
Satelitte Radio Addict
Posts: 869
Location: Toronto, ON
Location: Toronto, ON
October 3rd, 2007, 09:26 AM
I think that Unions served a very important purpose in the past.
However, I think the conditions they fought for and won are now basically entrenched in Canada's labour laws. Their purpose now seems a bit redundant and counter-productive IMHO.
I think that Unions served a very important purpose in the past.
However, I think the conditions they fought for and won are now basically entrenched in Canada's labour laws. Their purpose now seems a bit redundant and counter-productive IMHO.
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 5,489
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
October 3rd, 2007, 09:36 AM
Essentially, Union-up and lawyer-up mean the same thing. If there really was truth and fairness on one side, you wouldn't need the other. Comes right down to the same battle we see in here - right vs left.
Wolf
Quoting TenPenny
If the "Law" decides you're not going to assemble, they're going to see to it you don't assemble. It doesn't matter if you're the suit-and-tie crowd (like when the OPP stormed striking gov't workers at Ontario Legislature) hard-hat crowd, or the peace-pipe-and-ponytail crowd. Power is power.
Interesting that many people have been ranting about how useless unions are, yet many people also are upset at the way protestors at, say, the G8 meetings are treated. Pepper spray? Police 'infiltrating' the crowd, trying to stir up violence?
That would never happen during a labour dispute in modern Canada, would it?
Hmmm.
That would never happen during a labour dispute in modern Canada, would it?
Hmmm.
Essentially, Union-up and lawyer-up mean the same thing. If there really was truth and fairness on one side, you wouldn't need the other. Comes right down to the same battle we see in here - right vs left.
Wolf
