[Lemmy]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

Lemmy Lemmy:

That's a complete load of shit.

Lulz. That is the funniest thing I heard all day.

And what you've said is the stupidest thing I've heard all year.

[andyt]

I don't think public sector unions should be allowed to strike. Instead there should be a formula used to set wages based on equivalent private sector wages.

[Lemmy]

Even presuming that there's such a thing to make comparison, which there isn't, how do you deal with salaried positions, like teachers?

[andyt]

No problem comparing salaried positions that I see. If there are not enough private sector teachers you can compare the job to similar private sector jobs, or ones requiring the same amount of training and skill set. Like they've done with equivalent work for wages.

But how is striking a good idea? The employer actually saves money during a strike, and their prod to settle is all about public relations. There's only one employer who can't go broke or lose business to competitors, so there's no pressure to settle on the employer on that basis. Swivel servants did not have the right to strike before, and yet made out OK, weren't reduced to slavery.

[bootlegga]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I fully agree that we seem to be headed back to the 19th century in regards to labour relations, simply because organized labour is vilified and seemingly 100% to blame in every labour dispute lately. And that's despite blatant examples like Hostess in the US, where execs handed themselves raises year after year while demanding the average joes take pay cuts and lose benefits.

The problem is the politicians won't stand up to corporations either, so they just keep tightening the screws on everyone in pursuit of dividends and higher share prices.

It is a shame when it comes to the state of of labor relations in the private sector, but when it comes to the public sector? Well, I see the public sector unions as even more greedy than the corporations because it is the taxpayer's money they are after for their (pretty much) guaranteed benebits, which includes taxes collected from those employed in the private sector who either have uncertain benefits or none at all. Hence why I have sympathy for Wal-Mart employees and nothing but disdain for teachers/other public sector unions.

TL:DR Private Sector unions good; public sector unions bad.

Maybe the problem is because they emulate their bosses (politicians) too well, who almost never hesitate to vote themselves big fat raises and huge pensions. I.E., if they get a nice raise this year, why can't we?

In theory, I don't have a problem with a company wanting to cut labour costs in collective bargaining sessions (especially to save an ailing company and preserve jobs), but those costs should be across the board, not just from union members, which is often the case.

It's usually a cold day in hell when executives take the same percentage cuts as the frontline workers do in union shops. If execs take a cut at all, it's typically miniscule to what the union workers do.

Likewise in public sector unions, it's hard to cry poverty in bargaining sessions with the teachers/nurses/doctors/etc union after the pols vote themselves a 10% pay increase or create some gold-plated pension plan.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

No problem comparing salaried positions that I see. If there are not enough private sector teachers you can compare the job to similar private sector jobs, or ones requiring the same amount of training and skill set. Like they've done with equivalent work for wages.

Well that would piss off tax payers because similarly educated people to teachers make a hell of a lot more money in the private sector.

andyt andyt:

But how is striking a good idea? The employer actually saves money during a strike, and their prod to settle is all about public relations. There's only one employer who can't go broke or lose business to competitors, so there's no pressure to settle on the employer on that basis. Swivel servants did not have the right to strike before, and yet made out OK, weren't reduced to slavery.

Striking is rarely a good idea. It's never a money-making prospect for the union. I've been involved in dozens of negotiations and, when I've been on that side of the table, I've always advised the union not to strike. But whether it's a good idea or not is irrelevant. If the workers believe the fight is worth making, then it's up to them to make that decision, not impartial third-party observers. As for "pressure to settle", well teachers have the trump card in that the public largely views them as daycare anyway. Other PSUs have less bargaining power because the public isn't so inconvenienced as they are by their own children being at home.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

No problem comparing salaried positions that I see. If there are not enough private sector teachers you can compare the job to similar private sector jobs, or ones requiring the same amount of training and skill set. Like they've done with equivalent work for wages.

But how is striking a good idea? The employer actually saves money during a strike, and their prod to settle is all about public relations. There's only one employer who can't go broke or lose business to competitors, so there's no pressure to settle on the employer on that basis. Swivel servants did not have the right to strike before, and yet made out OK, weren't reduced to slavery.

So your saying that, unless slavery is involved, workers shouldn't have the right to organize? I'd say that's extreme.

I think you have an equality problem--how can you say that this group over here gets to organize (private), and this group doesn't (public). Because it's taxpayers dollars? Doesn't seem like a strong enough argument to me.
Your essentially dealing with a rights isssue here, so equality is paramount.

The right to strike for public wrokers is pretty limited. A lot of them are critical and can't strike effectively for obvious reasons--police, soldiers, firefighters. The others are simply legislated back to work when the strike becomes a nuisance.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Well that would piss off tax payers because similarly educated people to teachers make a hell of a lot more money in the private sector.

Teaching is a very important job and should be remunerated accordingly. It would be great to pay teachers more. But then, there should be more pressure on teachers to do a good job - weed out the bad ones, including the ones that are burnt out and including tenured professors. This is where a union system is not helpful.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

So your saying that, unless slavery is involved, workers shouldn't have the right to organize? I'd say that's extreme.

I think you have an equality problem--how can you say that this group over here gets to organize (private), and this group doesn't (public). Because it's taxpayers dollars? Doesn't seem like a strong enough argument to me.
Your essentially dealing with a rights isssue here, so equality is paramount.

The right to strike for public wrokers is pretty limited. A lot of them are critical and can't strike effectively for obvious reasons--police, soldiers, firefighters. The others are simply legislated back to work when the strike becomes a nuisance.

Organize all you want, but no right to strike. My point is that swivel servants did OK before they had the right to strike, they were not exploited. If their wages are set according to similar jobs in the private sector, they should have nothing to worry about. Striking the govt just does't make much sense. Look at Lemmy's reply.

A fair system would have to be in place before the right to strike was removed. I'm not just saying take away their right and fuck em. As you've pointed out, this right is limited anyway, and as Lemmy pointed out, not that effective except for teachers and garbage collectors. (Und ve hav ways to deal with garbage collectors) Swivel servants would probably come out ahead under my system. They would not be underpaid the way they were for many years, nor overpaid the way many now are.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

Teaching is a very important job and should be remunerated accordingly. It would be great to pay teachers more. But then, there should be more pressure on teachers to do a good job - weed out the bad ones, including the ones that are burnt out

I think it's a myth that there are a lot of bad teachers out there. There's a serious perception problem because every teenager thinks that their teachers are bad. They take those perceptions into adulthood. My research indicates that bad teachers are "weeded out". Their colleagues want them out of the profession and the union's only role is to guarantee a fair process, not to protect bad teachers. Unions do not represent members at College of Teachers hearings.

andyt andyt:

and including tenured professors.

I hope I live so long.

andyt andyt:

This is where a union system is not helpful.

The union helps the people it's supposed to help. It's a myth that they protect incompetents and wrong-doers. Those days are ancient history, at least in public education. I would suggest that it's a different story with police, both in terms of the quantity of "bad ones" and the protection they get from the "thin blue line". But even that is changing.

[FieryVulpine]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Likewise in public sector unions, it's hard to cry poverty in bargaining sessions with the teachers/nurses/doctors/etc union after the pols vote themselves a 10% pay increase or create some gold-plated pension plan.

I concede that I am letting events in Ontario color my vision. The McGuinty government gave the unions whatever they wanted in exchange for their support and look what happened, they became greedy because they thought Dalton would continue to be a pushover.

I also have to agree that it is screwed up when the those on the work floor are expected to take a pay cut yet the executives are not. One of the things that irked me was how the "geniuses" behind the 2008 meltdown gave themselves a bonus when the U.S. government handed them the bailout. Incompetence on that scale should end in termination regardless of position.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Organize all you want, but no right to strike. My point is that swivel servants did OK before they had the right to strike, they were not exploited. If their wages are set according to similar jobs in the private sector, they should have nothing to worry about. Striking the govt just does't make much sense. Look at Lemmy's reply.

A fair system would have to be in place before the right to strike was removed. I'm not just saying take away their right and fuck em. As you've pointed out, this right is limited anyway, and as Lemmy pointed out, not that effective except for teachers and garbage collectors. (Und ve hav ways to deal with garbage collectors) Swivel servants would probably come out ahead under my system. They would not be underpaid the way they were for many years, nor overpaid the way many now are.

OK, I misunderstood you earlier. Although I mostly agree with what you're saying, I'm not sure now is the time to be taking more tools away from unions. They are already moribund in the private sector and under relentless attack in the public sector. It's my personal opinion that the pendumlum has swung too far in favour of corporatism.

On the other hand I would love to make what my private sector counterparts make!

[Xort]

martin14 martin14:

The "ME,ME,ME and only ME generations can't think past their own noses.
Sorry.

Tell me again was it the Me generation or the Boomers that gave themself very lucrative pensions, didn't pay into it enought to cover all the costs of their retirement payouts under the expectation that their children would pick up the slack for them?

Was it the Me gen or the Boomers that set up their pension for defined benefits but all the new guys get defined contributions?

[Brenda]

Or are the boomers calling that generation the "me" generation because they have to blame someone else for the shit they created?

[peck420]

I absolutely love hindsight.