You don't say.
Laval University professor Stephen Gordon makes a telling point in a recent column on the state of Canada’s labour unions.
“More than 60 per cent of union members outside Quebec (and 52 per cent in Quebec) work in the public sector,” he writes. “The workforce is becoming increasingly polarized into two groups: non-unionized private-sector workers and unionized public-sector workers. More than five out of every six Canadian workers fall into one of these two categories.”
Gordon’s point is that with unions so heavily concentrated among employees on the public payroll, Canadians may increasingly see them as a force for the entrenched privileges those workers enjoy: guaranteed pensions, generous benefits, superior job protection, etc.
But there’s also this: while unions enjoy portraying themselves as a bulwark of fairness against the pervasive greed of the one per cent, their real target is rarely Canada’s wealthy. The pain of their actions is overwhelmingly inflicted on fellow wage-earners, not the rich.
Unions have been losing ground in the private sector for some time. The percentage of private-sector workers represented by a union has fallen below 14 per cent, or about one in seven. Instead, union membership is heavily concentrated in the public sector: 75 per cent across Canada and 82 per cent in Quebec. So when unions demand more money, better conditions and expanded benefits on top of those they already enjoy, they’re not waving their placards at a bunch of cigar-smoking plutocrats in plush corner offices. They’re demanding a bigger share of the public purse from governments, which means taxpayers, which means everyday working stiffs.
This is a very inconvenient fact for union bosses. It undermines their portrayal of the working universe as an ongoing clash between haves and have-nots, and the justification they offer for their continued existence. If the world isn’t divided into the grasping rich and disadvantaged underclasses, who is the enemy? If unions find themselves constantly in confrontation with public employers, it pits them, not against a privileged few, but against the broader public, most of whom face just as great a struggle to get by in a difficult world as the union’s own members.
mo
Kelly McParland: For public sector unions, the enemy is you | National Post
Laval University professor Stephen Gordon makes a telling point in a recent column on the state of Canada’s labour unions.
“More than 60 per cent of union members outside Quebec (and 52 per cent in Quebec) work in the public sector,” he writes. “The workforce is becoming increasingly polarized into two groups: non-unionized private-sector workers and unionized public-sector workers. More than five out of every six Canadian workers fall into one of these two categories.”
Gordon’s point is that with unions so heavily concentrated among employees on the public payroll, Canadians may increasingly see them as a force for the entrenched privileges those workers enjoy: guaranteed pensions, generous benefits, superior job protection, etc.
But there’s also this: while unions enjoy portraying themselves as a bulwark of fairness against the pervasive greed of the one per cent, their real target is rarely Canada’s wealthy. The pain of their actions is overwhelmingly inflicted on fellow wage-earners, not the rich.
Unions have been losing ground in the private sector for some time. The percentage of private-sector workers represented by a union has fallen below 14 per cent, or about one in seven. Instead, union membership is heavily concentrated in the public sector: 75 per cent across Canada and 82 per cent in Quebec. So when unions demand more money, better conditions and expanded benefits on top of those they already enjoy, they’re not waving their placards at a bunch of cigar-smoking plutocrats in plush corner offices. They’re demanding a bigger share of the public purse from governments, which means taxpayers, which means everyday working stiffs.
This is a very inconvenient fact for union bosses. It undermines their portrayal of the working universe as an ongoing clash between haves and have-nots, and the justification they offer for their continued existence. If the world isn’t divided into the grasping rich and disadvantaged underclasses, who is the enemy? If unions find themselves constantly in confrontation with public employers, it pits them, not against a privileged few, but against the broader public, most of whom face just as great a struggle to get by in a difficult world as the union’s own members.
mo
Kelly McParland: For public sector unions, the enemy is you | National Post
