For public sector unions, the enemy is you
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
I have only belonged to two, our first union went bankrupt, to make a long story short it imploded from within because one bargaining unit de-certified, and we decided to join our US counterparts. With all the resources we now have we are able to assist our employers with all sorts of support including but not limited to accident investigation, occupational safety and health, employee assistance as well as providing extended health and life insurance benefits. Private sector unions, by and large, understand on which side their bread is buttered. Public sector unions give the labour movement a bad name for sure because they know government funding is pretty much infinite and can hold the government hostage for unreasonable settlements. Private sector unions know that bleeding the company will only lead to a world of hurt, for themselves as well as their employers. BTW, much of our management came up through the union ranks.
This is the usual anti-union BS and it ignores the fact that many of the most prosperous nations in the world such as the Scandinavian democracies as well as Germany are very highly unionized. It also ignores the fact that non-unionized workers in Canada and the US have shorter vacations, lower wages, and fewer benefits than workers in not only their own countries, but also many other nations as well.
The key is to qualify union, private sector unions deal in relative monetary reality, public sector unions recognize no such bounds confident in the fiscal irresponsiblty of political nincompoops.
I grow tired of the "It works in <insert some far away country>" mantra.
I don't have any personal experience with Scandinavia, and have to rely on Scandinavia media for facts.
However, relying on Scandinavian media for the facts about Scandinavia, is about as accurate as relying on Canadian media for facts on Canada. It is completely reasonable and normal to be skeptical.
There is a solution to your ignorance. You could actually study economic and political systems that exist outside your own. I realize that requires a bit of mental effort, but it is really the only way. The point is that is is incredibly narrow minded to assume that the system you are used to is so perfect that we cannot learn from the experience of others.
Studying and learning other political system requires a leftoid to leech off the system while others actually go to work and contribute to this economy. I better get busy producing gdp so the leeches don't starve.I trust that it is your job to Google Scandinavia each day. It is everyone's job to be skeptical about what you say....if not for any other reason than to watch you pull out that 'I am left and smarter than you' card that is so 1980s of you. You do realize that provinces like Alberta enjoy a higher rate of post secondary educated peoplease than the Liberal arts provinces? Sorry that is generally physical sciences and we tend to want to see concrete evidence and logic. We grow tire of people that have a degree on the wall and get annoyed if their opinion gets challenged. The world doesn't move forward if facts don't get challenged.
I recall a situation a number of years ago, CN or CP rail workers were poised to go on strike and then Labour Minister Lisa Raitt legislated them back to work before that could happen citing the economic hardship it would place on the country. At around the same time one bargaining unit in our group of companies went on strike and two others including the one I belong to were also set to. Ms. Raitt eventually legislated them back to work and drafted legislation to be passed immediately in the event either of the other two groups walked off. We were still in 11th hour bargaining but the company, with Ms. Raitt's threat in hand, was able to squeeze concessions from our group. Ms. Raitt essentially cost our group something north of $8M claiming we operated an "essential service". How does that make sense? We work for privately owned publicly traded (TSX) companies, and yes, I too am a shareholder as are many of my co-workers, so we too have some interest in how well the company performs.
Contrast that with, during the same period the Halifax Transit operators did go on strike. NDP Premier Darrell Dexter refused to legislate them back to work and the strike dragged on for a period. Granted the bus drivers wages and working conditions paled in comparison to their counterparts in similar cities such as Ottawa but Halifax Transit is a government owned entity, why were they treated so differently?
If Lisa Raitt manages a coup and secures the CPC leadership and JT is still Lib leader come the next election, I may re-consider a move to Russia.
The well-nigh conclusive evidence that unionization destroys economic value and would struggle to survive in competitive environments: only 13.7 per cent of Canada’s private sector workers were unionized as of 2023, down from 19.0 per cent in 1997 (the earliest year with comparable Statistics Canada data), while 73.5 per cent of public sector workers were unionized in 2023, up from 69.8 per cent in 1997.
Similarly, in the United States, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports private sector unionization excluding agriculture was 6.1 per cent in 2023 versus public sector unionization of 32.5 per cent.
The differences in unionization in the private versus public sector are striking; so too are the significantly higher unionization rates in Canada versus the United States.
Differences in labour relations laws explain much of this. In 2014, the Fraser Institute published rankings of how balanced labour relations laws were across 61 jurisdictions — the 10 provinces, the Canadian federal government, and 50 US states. The rankings considered such things as whether a secret ballot vote is needed to certify a union, whether workers who do not want to join a union could be forced to pay union dues, whether temporary replacement workers are allowed in the event of a strike, and so on.
Out of 61 jurisdictions, the Canadian federal government placed dead last with labour relations laws that most heavily favoured unions, an imbalance now made even worse with the Trudeau government’s recent legislation to ban replacement workers during strikes and lockouts in federally regulated workplaces — including railways.
Spots 51 through 60 were taken by the 10 provinces, with Alberta deemed the least worst province in Canada for labour relations laws, but with worse laws overall than all of the states (despite doing better than the states in some areas).
Unbalanced laws that give extraordinary privilege to unions not only destroy economic value and increase the risk of work stoppages, but they fail to protect workers. It is well established that workers are protected not by unions or government regulation, but by employers bidding for labour.
“The employers who protect a worker,” as Milton Friedman famously explained, “are the people who would like to hire him, but for whom he doesn’t work. The real protection that a worker gets is the existence of more than one possible employer. That’s what gives him freedom; that’s what enables him to get the full value of his services. It’s competition. It’s a free market.”
Matthew Lau: Railway unions have far too much power — National Post
The federal government has made it much too easy for them to hold Canada hostage
Agree that the Union movement has lost it's way and now controlled by people who are more interested in their own union position than any member concern.
Members are there to pay dues and get thrown under the bus when necessary. The irony of negotiating is the ripple affect the negotiations have on the negotiator's own remuneration. When government is involved both sides play along to milk it for what they can.
Few private unions are left and if they are government funded projects are one of the few sources of good temporary employment. Meanwhile union administration enjoys stable year round employment whether members are working or not.
Sometimes as in the case of a cost plus job it is to the employers benefit to max out expenses including wages and hours to pad the negotiated handling fee. 5% of $6 billion adds up but 5% of $20 billion is better if you can get away with it. And they always get away with it because politicians will never acknowledge how poorly controlled these jobs become. Tax payer just pays. Been there, seen it with my own eyes.
It's one of the reasons gas is $1.75 litre
Members are there to pay dues and get thrown under the bus when necessary. The irony of negotiating is the ripple affect the negotiations have on the negotiator's own remuneration. When government is involved both sides play along to milk it for what they can.
Few private unions are left and if they are government funded projects are one of the few sources of good temporary employment. Meanwhile union administration enjoys stable year round employment whether members are working or not.
Sometimes as in the case of a cost plus job it is to the employers benefit to max out expenses including wages and hours to pad the negotiated handling fee. 5% of $6 billion adds up but 5% of $20 billion is better if you can get away with it. And they always get away with it because politicians will never acknowledge how poorly controlled these jobs become. Tax payer just pays. Been there, seen it with my own eyes.
It's one of the reasons gas is $1.75 litre
Last edited:
We did see the public sector unions throw 20% or so of their members under the bus during Covid .
No, just useless. Only 6% of the union labour is blue collar, the rest public employees.
Next govt strike should offer up incentives for work boots, head lamps and fresh canaries THATS IT!