178 replies to this topic

[dre]

I retract it then. It isn't the first time I've seen it done in the last little while though (not by you).

You're usually one of the smarter posters on here, so I was surprised.

Thanx for the benefit of the doubt. We can butt heads on some issues but I absolutely DO respect you as a reasonable and measured guy.

[Smallc]

Thanx for the benefit of the doubt. We can butt heads on some issues but I absolutely DO respect you as a reasonable and measured guy.

I respect what you say too, generally...except for the hate you have on for representative democracy

[dre]

No one is really complaining about them loud enough for a party to do that (good thing too, IMO)



Well, like I said, the politicians do have to decide collectively, and they have to do it in a way that won't outrage their employer...so it is somewhat similar.

Fair enough but they dont have to threaten to walk off the job to get decent wages and safe working conditions.

Im not in a union, and I never have been, and I know that sometimes they take things too far. But the right to collectively bargain and the right to strike have been absolutely essential to our society. Without them theres no middle class, no safe working conditions, no limits to hours worked per day, no overtime pay... nothing.

Its a good system IMO, that has worked out pretty well for both sides.

[Smallc]

That's what I always say about our form of democracy haha.

You're right, it is an important part of our society. I just think that the timing on the part of the unions is bad. No one is going to win this.

[dre]

That's what I always say about our form of democracy haha.

You're right, it is an important part of our society. I just think that the timing on the part of the unions is bad. No one is going to win this.

Nobody is supposed to win. My guess is that there will be some kind of settlement sooner or later. Both sides have some leverage.

I wonder if - in the big picture - this relationship is too adversarial by its nature. Maybe the competing interests of ownership, management, and labor makes companies less profitable, and less successful?

An interesting case in point is Harmac...

http://www.harmacpacific.com/media_022709.php


Thats a pulp and paper mill just down the road... The multinational that used to own it was losing money and planned to shutter it. The workers got together and purchased a share of the company, and as owners got to look at the companies real books. Once they saw the numbers they willingly took a paycut and production costs at the mill went way down. Its profitable now and last year the employee/owners got their first dividend.

The workers only have a minority position in the company... Dont quote me, but I think its about 20%. Im not promoting communism But it was enough to refocus the efforts of labor and management on the health and profitability of the company.

Another interesting model might be the one used in some pro sports. Instead of labor negotiating wages with ownership, they negotiate for a certain piece of the total pie. So labor might get 45% of revenue and ownership might get 55%. In this scenario both "sides" have a direct stake in growing the total size of the pie. Theres still labor disputes though... over the size of the pieces... hmmmm...

Edited by dre, 23 May 2012 - 11:11 PM.

[madmax]

I retract it then. It isn't the first time I've seen it done in the last little while though (not by you).

You're usually one of the smarter posters on here, so I was surprised.

Holy Crap, I hope I don't do that subconciously.
Now you got me looking back at my posts...

small for small
C for Conservative

Doh....

If I have ever done that ... I also Apologise.... erm, and I may do it again, but it would never be on purpose or as a slur... just an error of sorts.

it would be like someone saying

MadMax

[fellowtraveller]

So then they better get their butts to the table and figure something out with their work force because those wildcat strikes are killing Air Canada right now lot of good the government did there.

What if what they figure out for their workforce is to lay off many and reduce wages and benefits to a few remaining? Would you support that?

[fellowtraveller]

Im not in a union, and I never have been, and I know that sometimes they take things too far. But the right to collectively bargain and the right to strike have been absolutely essential to our society. Without them theres no middle class, no safe working conditions, no limits to hours worked per day, no overtime pay... nothing.

limits on hours worked, safeworking conditions and overtime pay are all leguislated where I live ad have no connection to union membership. Is it different where you are?
If ypou support the rights of humans to collectively bargain, do you also support the right to refuse to be part of a collective bargaining unit, have the right to refuse all group negotiated wages/benefits and have the right to negotiate your own?

[fellowtraveller]

So labor might get 45% of revenue and ownership might get 55%. In this scenario both "sides" have a direct stake in growing the total size of the pie. Theres still labor disputes though... over the size of the pieces... hmmmm

Only works if labour comes up with 45% of the capital too, otherwise they are getting a massively disporportionate slice. If anybody wants to take a big chunk of profit, they have to also take a big chunk of loss. Are you willing to work for nothing some years in the hope of getting extra other years- after also investing your life savings?

[Jack Weber]

limits on hours worked, safeworking conditions and overtime pay are all leguislated where I live ad have no connection to union membership. Is it different where you are?
If ypou support the rights of humans to collectively bargain, do you also support the right to refuse to be part of a collective bargaining unit, have the right to refuse all group negotiated wages/benefits and have the right to negotiate your own?

My contract states OT is after 40 hours worked...

The province of Otario's minimum is 44 hours...

Hmmm...Do I support compulsary union membership???

No!!

And I've laid out many times here how the law operates in Ontario (and every other province,as far as I know) and how much of a canard the "forced union membership" arguement by the anti-union crowd is.

So,are you really asking if I support the current law,known as "Agency Shop" or do I support your thinly veiled attempt at supporting legislated union busting known colloquially "Right to Work"...

I support "Agency Shop" as it leaves the union local in tact even though individuals can opt out of membership,although they do get to partake of all negotiated wage and benefit increases...

Edited by Jack Weber, 24 May 2012 - 07:09 PM.

[fellowtraveller]

My contract states OT is after 40 hours worked...

The province of Otario's minimum is 44 hours...

Hmmm...Do I support compulsary union membership???

No!!

And I've laid out many times here how the law operates in Ontario (and every other province,as far as I know) and how much of a canard the "forced union membership" arguement by the anti-union crowd is.

So,are you really asking if I support the current law,known as "Agency Shop" or do I support your thinly veiled attempt at supporting legislated union busting known colloquially "Right to Work"...

I support "Agency Shop" as it leaves the union local in tact even though individuals can opt out of membership,although they do get to partake of all negotiated wage and benefit increases...

You are forced to join unions in Ontario?
How despicable.

In Alberta, you are forced to pay union dues no matter how useless they are and confrontational the situation may be. All workers -not just members- are also forced to submit to the shitty agreements negotiated by self serving union leaders. It is a disgrace.

[Jack Weber]

You are forced to join unions in Ontario?
How despicable.

In Alberta, you are forced to pay union dues no matter how useless they are and confrontational the situation may be. All workers -not just members- are also forced to submit to the shitty agreements negotiated by self serving union leaders. It is a disgrace.

How is one "forced" to join a union under Agency Shop guidelines???

Please explain???

By the way,it's clear your a labour law expert so I doubt you'll have to google it or have me explain it to you,right?

Edited by Jack Weber, 24 May 2012 - 07:31 PM.

[Vendetta]

I hope all the unions will band together with the rest of the workers for a full out general strike. Bring Harperland crashing down.

[dre]

Only works if labour comes up with 45% of the capital too, otherwise they are getting a massively disporportionate slice. If anybody wants to take a big chunk of profit, they have to also take a big chunk of loss. Are you willing to work for nothing some years in the hope of getting extra other years- after also investing your life savings?

No it works if labor is roughly 45% of whats involved to produce the product.

If anybody wants to take a big chunk of profit, they have to also take a big chunk of loss. Are you willing to work for nothing some years in the hope of getting extra other years- after also investing your life savings?

Thats the whole point of distributing revenue in that way. The workers DO make less money in slow years.

[dre]

limits on hours worked, safeworking conditions and overtime pay are all leguislated where I live ad have no connection to union membership. Is it different where you are?
If ypou support the rights of humans to collectively bargain, do you also support the right to refuse to be part of a collective bargaining unit, have the right to refuse all group negotiated wages/benefits and have the right to negotiate your own?

limits on hours worked, safeworking conditions and overtime pay are all leguislated where I live ad have no connection to union membership. Is it different where you are?

Yeah they are legislated now in some places because workers got organized and fought for those things. They were not before that.