Unions!

[afransen]

Frankly, that's like basing your impression of crime rates on CTV news at six.

CEO types are really irrelevant in this discussion. I'm mostly talking about people who make less than 100k or so a year.

 

[rbt]

Unions are anti-meritocratic. This makes a huge difference. Many, if not all, large companies have meritocratic management. The cream rises to the top because they earn it and are driven.

Whole departments are not cut simply because the VP for the last 18 months is an idiot. The department would have to be of little strategic or operational value. Beyond that, a well-managed company wouldn't just sack everyone in the department, regardless of the individuals' performance.

If the company such as SBC isn't performing well they don't cut individuals. They slash departments and offices. I know this from first hand experience.

It takes far too long to evaluate 100000 employees individually to try and knock off 10000 of them. Far easier to look at 500 locations or offices instead and start slashing product lines and projects, then laying off everyone related.

Really, this is exactly how they did it. Since that time, they bought chunks of AT&T.

A recent example is GM. They abandoned product lines. There was little to no evaluation of individuals.


How about the AMD takeover of ATI? The resulting layoffs were in duplicated departments and it hit everybody in those departments. Didn't matter how good the accountants were, they could relocate or find new employment.


In big business the individual really doesn't matter. Business moves will always trump the capabilities of the individuals.


I'm not and never will be unionized but I understand quite well why they exist and continue to be useful.


BTW, SBC paid excellent severance (about four times the required) just in case you were good or they wanted to acquire your new employer at some point in the future.

 

[Whoaccio]

I don't think unions are quite as anti-meritocratic as some people would suggest. There is also the argument that by sponsoring a less acidic workplace, unions improve productivity. From personal experience, I have met numerous skilled and deserving unionized workers.

That doesn't give license to the union itself, which resemble the Mafia in function, to extort governments. If the city was forcing CUPE employees to work 15hr days in asbestos filled attics with no lunchbreak, then striking is warranted. Torontonians, including those who are concerned with "social justice", should be concerned however when unions threaten strikes in order to implant "highest pay" clauses in their contracts. At the rate things are going, within a decade all unions in the GTA will have these contracts. Then what? With unconditional COLA adjustments, consistently above inflation rates, and "highest pay clauses" wages for government services will be rising by 3-5% a year. Those pay hikes for municipal employs will come directly from the tax base, or be recouped in declining services (most likely both).

 

[Urban Shocker]

Somehow, reading all this anti-union boilerplate about ... environments that foster social pressure to underperform ... prohibited from fixing a simple problem because it's someone else's job ... anti-meritocratic ... the cream rises to the top because they earn it and are driven ... reminds me of those SUCCESS WITHOUT COLLEGE courses that used to be advertised on the back of matchbook covers.

 

[Mongo]

Tell me about it. It seems a lot of people here have swallowed the corporate-driven anti-union propaganda hook, line and sinker.

 

[Whoaccio]

Tell me about it. It seems a lot of people here have swallowed the corporate-driven anti-union propaganda hook, line and sinker.

1.) Everyone has biases. If anybody here has bitten the corporate propaganda hook, then you are equally guilty of swallowing the NDP propaganda hook.

2.) Anti-union rhetoric aside, are you seriously arguing that public sector unions receiving "highest-pay" clauses and guaranteed raises are an efficient use of public resources?

3.) Who is hurt most by these conditions?

 

[Hank]

If the company such as SBC isn't performing well they don't cut individuals. They slash departments and offices. I know this from first hand experience.

It takes far too long to evaluate 100000 employees individually to try and knock off 10000 of them. Far easier to look at 500 locations or offices instead and start slashing product lines and projects, then laying off everyone related.

That seems to be your experience, but that doesn't mean that that's the only way companies do things. I worked at a large company (Celestica) for about 7 years (before leaving to go back to school) and I had a completely different experience.

I can't even count the waves of layoffs that hit Celestica during the time that I was there. Where I worked (the corporate head office in Toronto) the layoffs would generally do exactly what layoffs should do: get rid of the dead weight. We would lose 4-5 people each time in our department (of 25-30 people), but each time they were people that really weren't that great at their jobs and probably deserved to be fired (Celestica also gave great severence packages from what I heard).

What this (as well as merit-based bonuses and pay raises each year) instilled in me was a desire to work hard and be good at what I did...I didn't do this because I was constantly afraid that I'd be fired, I did this because I knew that the company valued good workers and as a good worker I'd have a job as long as I wanted one. Celestica has tens of thousands of employees worldwide and they didn't have any trouble evaluating each and every one when the need came around (bonus time, raise time, firing time, etc).

It's true that sometimes there were wholesale closings (for example they closed a lot of manufacturing plants in high-cost geographies like the UK), but even here in Toronto where they're likely to close (or at least severely downsize) the last remaining Canadian manufacturing plant they've still done it through successive waves of (mainly voluntary) layoff packages. No one has been kicked out en masse.

Anecdotal evidence maybe, but it does show that not all companies are mindless firing machines (and really, it's not in their economic best interests to get rid of good people).

 

[Dichotomy]

The same thing happened at Equifax. They are now a shell company, headquartered in Atlanta. All their services were 'contracted out' to IBM. A lot of dead weight was cleared out and people I know working at IBM lament the 'good ol' days' of long coffee breaks and calling in sick.
Compare that to the TTC where you get sick days for a hangnail. Look at the improvement to the MTO services now that they are private. Remember going to get a license sticker 15 years ago and how surly the clerks were, how dirty the offices were?
There is good and bad in everything, but it is only common sense that the non-competitive environment that the unions foster are going to result in more rot and laziness. Simple human nature. Why would I work harder than the guy beside me, if we are getting the same increase every year?

 

[afransen]

If the company such as SBC isn't performing well they don't cut individuals. They slash departments and offices. I know this from first hand experience.

It takes far too long to evaluate 100000 employees individually to try and knock off 10000 of them. Far easier to look at 500 locations or offices instead and start slashing product lines and projects, then laying off everyone related.

Really, this is exactly how they did it. Since that time, they bought chunks of AT&T.

A recent example is GM. They abandoned product lines. There was little to no evaluation of individuals.

I don't think that any of this really refutes my point. These departments weren't of strategic value. To the extent that they sent away strategically valuable employees rather than retasking them, these companies are poorly managed. Human capital can be quite valuable, and to write off so much of it wholesale is bad business.

How about the AMD takeover of ATI? The resulting layoffs were in duplicated departments and it hit everybody in those departments. Didn't matter how good the accountants were, they could relocate or find new employment.

They weren't terminated then: they could relocate. I don't think this supports your point.

 

[afransen]

I don't think unions are quite as anti-meritocratic as some people would suggest.

Two points: seniority is a huge determinant in who gets to do what in most union shops. This is anti-meritocratic. Unions routinely protect terrible employees from termination, not only because unions can be weak and corrupt, but also because unions are at risk of litigation if they fail to take reasonable steps to protect a member. This is anti-meritocratic, as the weak employees are essentially dead weight being carried by the better employees. If they could be weeded out, productivity would inevitably rise, giving justification for rising wages.

There is also the argument that by sponsoring a less acidic workplace, unions improve productivity. From personal experience, I have met numerous skilled and deserving unionized workers.

Huh? Most unionized environments seem more political than non-unionized environments. Pity the teacher that makes the mistake of taking a non-mainstream view in the staff room.

Also, getting in trouble for doing something like moving chairs around a room, because it is technically someone else's job is insanity. At least for me, this kind of environment would be very difficult.

I don't know why you brought up the second point, however. There are skilled and deserving employees in just about every company. I get the feeling that unions tend to hold these types of people back, rather than reward their superior performance. Public unions may be different in this regard, but all else equal, if unions didn't protect the deadweight employees, the skilled and deserving would be better off.

If the city was forcing CUPE employees to work 15hr days in asbestos filled attics with no lunchbreak, then striking is warranted.

Labour laws, not unions, are what protect employees in these situations. You have the legal right to refuse any work you reasonably deem to be unsafe without retribution. Employers are legally bound to allow lunchbreaks. Perhaps unions help ever so slightly in that they may stand up to employers who violate these laws, but I don't think they are by any means necessary for this purpose. Many, many non-unionized firms are held in check by these labour laws.

 

[kEiThZ]

Anyone here ever tried applying for a job at GM in Oshawa? The union decides who get's hired, not the company. They've signed their own death warrant on that file.

Public sector unions are worse in my opinion. And I say this as somebody who works in the public sector. They have the ability to hold the government and by extension the public, for ransom (outlandish wage increases), because they have no competitors. Government functions are going to outsourced to India or China. If a private sector union messes up and takes a company down with them, they hurt no one but the employees they represent (UAW/CAW). There is no chance of that happening with the public sector, so the unions will keep making crazy demands. They insist on the "fair wages" argument....somehow forgetting along the way that not all work is valued the same and that not all employers can compensate for said work equally.

 

[Dichotomy]

Anyone here ever tried applying for a job at GM in Oshawa? The union decides who get's hired, not the company. They've signed their own death warrant on that file.

Public sector unions are worse in my opinion. And I say this as somebody who works in the public sector. They have the ability to hold the government and by extension the public, for ransom (outlandish wage increases), because they have no competitors. Government functions are going to outsourced to India or China. If a private sector union messes up and takes a company down with them, they hurt no one but the employees they represent (UAW/CAW). There is no chance of that happening with the public sector, so the unions will keep making crazy demands. They insist on the "fair wages" argument....somehow forgetting along the way that not all work is valued the same and that not all employers can compensate for said work equally.

Well, at least GM has the ability to outsource its jobs to Mexico or Korea; most public service jobs can't be sent overseas. Still, I'd like to see competition opened for a lot of city services, like garbage pickup, cleaning the parks, maintenance.
Wouldn't it be nice if hospitals were set up like mini-businesses, government funded but their services could compete with each other? How about a flat amount per patient and then bonuses or penalties depending on CSI (customer satisfaction)?
I can think of a lot of areas where the city could do better, but it ain't gonna happen with Miller in power.

 

[tkip]

Exactly....

"I'm not and never will be unionized but I understand quite well why they exist and continue to be useful." Good to see someone that has an understanding of why unions are still needed to this day.

I just tihnk it's interesting that while some bash unions, they tend to overlook how other groups band together and seek out favours/bailouts/improvements.

Doctors, banks, special interest groups, polictians, numerous private sector/industry interest lobbylists and so on. For some reason this is okay and no one interfers with them but as soon as workers get organized and form a union? Evil has been unleashed!

Just my thoughts.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Indeed. The Reagan / Mulroney / Harris / Bush / Harper legacy is one of tax cuts for the welthy, cutbacks on benefits, services and cultural programs, anti-union legislation so that workers can be underpaid - all to benefit their masters in the business community. Whoever takes over from them has to fix the mess they create and dig the economy out of the hole.

 

[Whoaccio]

"I'm not and never will be unionized but I understand quite well why they exist and continue to be useful." Good to see someone that has an understanding of why unions are still needed to this day.

I just tihnk it's interesting that while some bash unions, they tend to overlook how other groups band together and seek out favours/bailouts/improvements.

Doctors, banks, special interest groups, polictians, numerous private sector/industry interest lobbylists and so on. For some reason this is okay and no one interfers with them but as soon as workers get organized and form a union? Evil has been unleashed!

Just my thoughts.

Well, I originally started this thread as a topic on public sector unions, not unions in general. When it comes to the CAW or some other private sector union, I am ambivalent. If Buzz Hargrove wants to push for higher wages and unrealistic pensions from GM & Ford, whatever, it is their jobs that are going to Mexico not mine. If union members are happy they will re-elect him as president.

Surely though there is a difference between the CAW bartering with private businesses and CUPE or ATU threatening the government with strikes. Do you honestly think that implanting "highest-pay" clauses, in every contract, is a good use of public money? We aren't talking about cutting into some aristocrat's yacht-fund, this is public money meant to be used towards public services. Honestly, who bennefits from holding the government ransom?