[unimaginative2]

Generally speaking, I agree with you, tkip. I think a lot of the disproportionate rage directed towards public sector workers comes from the fact that the average citizen is their employer and is directly paying their salary through his or her taxes. They then have a great deal of resentment when they are paying other people, who have similar levels of education to them, significantly higher wages than they themselves receive. This may also be exacerbated by poor service they may have received from public servants and the inconvenience of a strike halting vital monopoly public services. When a private company goes on strike, one can always buy from another company, but there's no choice when it comes to public services. I'm not saying that these contracts are fair or unfair, just trying to figure out why they seem to provoke such rage.

You're right, though, that it is a little bit odd that so much rage is directed at people who, in the scheme of things, really don't make all that much. I guess people just accept that business leaders and others make vast fortunes because their jobs seem like a different world, but resent city workers making more but doing jobs quite similar to their own. Bailed out bankers still collecting multi-million dollar bonuses paid out of tax dollars is far more appalling than city workers abusing their sick days, but the response is inexplicably muted. I suppose media plays a role--they're very quick to jump on the bandwagon of union-bashing bu eerily silent about outrageous executive pay packages.

What also amazes me is that politicians are so tolerant. It must be pretty galling to the Prime Minister or President or a senior cabinet minister to have some business executive who's just run his company into the ground saunter in, knowing that he makes ten, a hundred, or even a thousand times more than they do. It's astounding when you think about it. Some people who manage a hedge fund or investment bank make literally a thousand times as much as the Prime Minister of Canada or the President of the United States. It's just unbelievable when you think about it.

One little thing--saying a lawyer makes $200 an hour sounds pretty spectacular, but in reality they can only bill for a fraction of the hours that they actually work, and they also have very substantial expenses as part of their profession. I've also heard a lot of people complain about how much it costs to hire a plumber.

 

[afransen]

LCBO employees are paid much more than other retail sector positions. They are overpaid because people line up around the block to work for them. That's your clue that there is a supply/demand mismatch, which tends to indicate that it's priced incorrectly.

 

[ducati0000]

hello Tkip,those people are NOT supported by tax payers and are not held hostage when they want a raise.If they have no customers they get no pay.What comparison are you trying to make here??????

 

[Eug]

LCBO employees are paid much more than other retail sector positions. They are overpaid because people line up around the block to work for them. That's your clue that there is a supply/demand mismatch, which tends to indicate that it's priced incorrectly.

I support paying a few in the LCBO more than the usual retail pay if they have a good knowledge of the wines, etc. but the vast majority of LCBO employees seem like any other Jack/Jill Schmoe off the street. It seems that most know no more about what they're selling than your average high school employee at Canadian Tire. Thus, those employees probably should get the usual going rate for retail.

One little thing--saying a lawyer makes $200 an hour sounds pretty spectacular, but in reality they can only bill for a fraction of the hours that they actually work, and they also have very substantial expenses as part of their profession. I've also heard a lot of people complain about how much it costs to hire a plumber.

Indeed. There was a rant elsewhere a while back about doc billings, but it was clear that the ranter had no idea that docs actually had to pay for their overhead (including the office, medical supplies, nurse and secretarial salaries, etc) out of those same billings, or that some of them had 60+ hour workweeks if call was included.

As for plumbers, I am willing to pay a good rate if the work is good. The problem is that many times the rates are just made up off the top of their heads, and sometimes those made up rates are just insane. I had one guy wanting to charge me >$300 for simple work on a shower, plus he said I'd have holes in the wall after that. So, I sent him away, and the second guy charged me less than half, with no holes in the wall. The first guy also wanted to charge me 3X as much as the second to replace a cartridge in another shower. At the rate the first guy was charging, it would have worked out to something like $500 an hour (plus parts), as it was only a 10 minute job.

 

[Dilla]

What do you find contradictory? or.. How do you find what I said contradictory?

It sounds as though you're saying "I love the union, but not what it does".

 

[mangasparky]

It sounds as though you're saying "I love the union, but not what it does".

Its not contradictory to be pro-union and not be in favour of a strike that cuts public service.

 

[Dilla]

Its not contradictory to be pro-union and not be in favour of a strike that cuts public service.

You'll have to explain further, I don't see it. How can you praise the union and disagree with its strike tactics, when they are what largely defines it as an entity?

 

[Dilla]

I find that a previous post stating that LCBO workers being grossly overpaid to be somewhat mysterious since it was never stated why they're overpaid.

They're overpaid for the work they do when compared to other who do similar jobs in non-government monopolies.

LCBO workers don't make that much. I don't know why some people think they're rich. They're not. A lot of them don't get guaranteed hours on a set schedule to live by. More than a few work elsewhere.

They make more than just about anyone else in retail sales. A lot of them don't get guaranteed hours! Some work TWO jobs?! Oh, the humanity!

How does one demonstrate what a job is worth in wages and what's the invisible measuring stick that makes this happen anyway? When it is too much for what a wage pays out? And why don't we force this unto other highly paid jobs out there.

Minimum wage, then supply and demand. Not arbitrary (and largely self-serving) notions of "fairness"

We have examples everywhere from doctors to bank managers to CEOs and so forth and yet, its always the worker pion that we focus our contempt on.

Is this an accident? I don't think so. I think it's a little too convenient that the public is always encouraged to direct their rage at unions and not take a closer look at what others make further up the ladder.

Do lawyers really deserve to make 100-400/hr? Is a contractor really worth 40k for a renovation project? Does a plumber really need that 30+ dollars/hr and so forth? I never hear people screaming enough is enough and confronting this and demanding something lower.

Don't like your lawyer? Get a new one. Don't like your doctor, get a new one, plumber charging too much? Get a new one. Don't like the LCBO, garbage...too bad, it's the only game in town. Also, the workers you've mentioned here have skill sets and work in open markets. The only way to get what they get is to work toward obtaining they're skills (which is actually hard), not striking (which is not hard, particularly for government monopoly employees - it's not as though you're going to put your employer out of business, or that the competition is going to take market share away while you're on strike).

Once again, I think that much of the anger which is directed at unions stems mainly from envy and jealously and that someone is benefitting from the sidelines and it's not in your best interests. I don't think it really has anything to do with ideology at all.

For me it's frustration that I have worked hard to obtain an education and a job, and I do not get paid as much, don't have nearly as much job security, nor a pension, health benefits, paid time off; etc. and have to - by law - pay the wages of these people who have more than me in almost every other way, and they complain they're not getting enough. All this for unskilled labour.

If unions and their workers are grossly overpaid might I suggest that a ton of non-unionized jobs are certainly guilty of this as well.

Well, if they're not public monopolies, and they're a rip-off, I can avoid them, and I do. If they're skilled workers, then they're probably going to cost a lot, and that makes sense to me.

 

[mangasparky]

You'll have to explain further, I don't see it. How can you praise the union and disagree with its strike tactics, when they are what largely defines it as an entity?

You are assuming that every single member of a given union wants to strike and that they always want more. You can be pro-union and not want a strike.

I'm not a member of a public sector union. However, I do believe that these workers have the right to protect their wages, seniority levels, and benefits. If they were not unionized, they would be bounced around like a yo-yo with each new incoming government. That is why their union is in place, that is why unions are needed.

 

[Dilla]

You are assuming that every single member of a given union wants to strike and that they always want more. You can be pro-union and not want a strike.

I'm not a member of a public sector union. However, I do believe that these workers have the right to protect their wages, seniority levels, and benefits. If they were not unionized, they would be bounced around like a yo-yo with each new incoming government. That is why their union is in place, that is why unions are needed.

You can be pro-union and not want to strike, but you can't not join a public union once you get the job, and you can't not strike once your union votes to. Pity.

Would they be bounced around? What are you basing that on? It would seem very inefficeneint to move workers around every 4 years. I think this fear is unfounded, and I would be interested to see some evidence. Even still, if a union prevented this, fine. But that's not what they're preventing now, is it?

Seniority is a lousy way to decide which employees deserve to move ahead. It does not reward performance.

Rights are rights, but at some point we fall into the category of privileges, which are not rights, but privileges. I believe we are seeing that in public sector strikes now. They are obtaining levels of perks which no-one else in comparable industries and jobs have and behaving as though these things are their right to have, which i believe they are not. Make no mistakes, these strikes are not about rights. People do not have the right to full time work, just because they want it. People do not have the right to retire early because they didn't call in sick, these are perks.

 

[mangasparky]

Would they be bounced around? What are you basing that on?

Sorry for the misinterpretation, I was referring to wage rates. An incoming government will allocate money from their budget to meet their mandates. If this means rolling back worker salaries to do so, then so be it. Unions block these attempts, and it is a major reason why they are in place.

Seniority is a lousy way to decide which employees deserve to move ahead. It does not reward performance.

Seniority in a union has nothing to do with performance, it has everything to do with time served. This is what decides who gets full-time work, and who gets part-time. It also plays a role when it comes to a lay off scenario. Without this, an employer could and would layoff an older worker because they have reached a new pay bracket. Performance means nothing, money is everything to an employer. Job security would go right out the window.

They are obtaining levels of perks which no-one else in comparable industries and jobs have and behaving as though these things are their right to have, which i believe they are not.

Cost of living wage increases, benefits, sick days, and vacation time are NOT perks. They are the right of every Canadian worker, union or non-union.

Perks: paid travel time, paid parking, free meals, tool allowances, free education, employee discounts..

Unions are increasing a middle class workers standard of living, and protect these workers jobs, and their families.

People do not have the right to full time work, just because they want it.

You consider your full time job to be a perk? I would seriously think about a career change if I were you.

The banking of sick days was negotiated and agreed upon at the time of a previous contract. It is a bargaining chip that can be given up in lue of something more important. The CUPE membership understands this, and they won't be overly upset to lose it, as long as the core of their package is maintained.

 

[Dilla]

Sorry for the misinterpretation, I was referring to wage rates. An incoming government will allocate money from their budget to meet their mandates. If this means rolling back worker salaries to do so, then so be it. Unions block these attempts, and it is a major reason why they are in place.

Perhaps. This doesn't seem to happen in the private sector (wild fluctuations, anyway), so I'm not sure it would happen here, either. Also, if unions prevented this sort of thing, I'm not sure who would be upset. I wouldn't. It's that the public unions have become so powerful, and the privileges of their members so out of whack with what those outside these unions receive that causes people to become upset.

Seniority in a union has nothing to do with performance, it has everything to do with time served. This is what decides who gets full-time work, and who gets part-time. It also plays a role when it comes to a lay off scenario. Without this, an employer could and would layoff an older worker because they have reached a new pay bracket. Performance means nothing, money is everything to an employer. Job security would go right out the window.

Employers have to lay-off some of their best and brightest up and coming employees, and keep and promote the dregs who do just enough to not get fired. Wonderful.

Older workers need not reach that new pay bracket if it was given not for simply being old, but for being good at your job. Then, lay-offs would be decided on an overall cost/benefit analysis, which would be much more fair to the younger and well performing employees than in your scenario. Is it fair to be better at your job but paid less than someone else?

Cost of living wage increases, benefits, sick days, and vacation time are NOT perks. They are the right of every Canadian worker, union or non-union.

No kidding. So you don't need unions to protect those for you.

Perks: paid travel time, paid parking, free meals, tool allowances, free education, employee discounts..

...Getting to retire early as a reward for not taking nearly a month of sick days a year...

Unions are increasing a middle class workers standard of living, and protect these workers jobs, and their families.

Public unions are increasing the standard of living for their members though taxation which often comes from the pockets of those who have much less. They are withholding services from those who pay their inflated salaries, and sometimes physically blocking these people from using alternatives. They hold monopolies on both the service and the labour. And they wonder why people are upset?

You consider your full time job to be a perk? I would seriously think about a career change if I were you.

I'm self employed. I don't consider full time jobs a perk, but they also not a right.

The banking of sick days was negotiated and agreed upon at the time of a previous contract. It is a bargaining chip that can be given up in lue of something more important. The CUPE membership understands this, and they won't be overly upset to lose it, as long as the core of their package is maintained.

It seems to me public unions hold all the chips here. They can strike all they want, and their never going to put their employer out of business, nor does their employer have to worry about anyone else competing with them for these services. Moreover, membership in the union is mandatory. There is no alternative for the rest of us who must suffer for them to get everything they want. When some sensible measures are made for the public (such as the garbage drop off centers and city hall being open), they attempt to even block those. Are we not allowed to do anything without their approval? If I tried to block the entrance way to any other city property, I would certainly be removed, but they are not. Who's in charge here?

 

[Eug]

Seniority in a union has nothing to do with performance, it has everything to do with time served. This is what decides who gets full-time work, and who gets part-time. It also plays a role when it comes to a lay off scenario. Without this, an employer could and would layoff an older worker because they have reached a new pay bracket. Performance means nothing, money is everything to an employer. Job security would go right out the window.

That is of course hyperbole. Most of the businesses I've dealt with would much rather keep proven hardworking and intelligent employees for somewhat higher pay than brand new untested employees for lower pay. However, they would also like to fire proven slackers and unintelligent employees and hire a brand new employee in their place.

The problem with seniority rules in certain unions is that it becomes extremely difficult to get rid of the older crappy workers. They just get shuffled around, getting transferred from dept. to dept. because nobody wants them.

Cost of living wage increases, benefits, sick days, and vacation time are NOT perks. They are the right of every Canadian worker, union or non-union.

Bankable sick days are in fact perks.

The banking of sick days was negotiated and agreed upon at the time of a previous contract. It is a bargaining chip that can be given up in lue of something more important. The CUPE membership understands this, and they won't be overly upset to lose it, as long as the core of their package is maintained.

Actually, there seem to be a fair amount of CUPE members who feel it's their right to keep it, as they used to have it. But yeah, it's a bargaining chip. However, IMO it's backfired for them, as the entire city now considers them greedy because of it.

 

[Dilla]

Actually, there seem to be a fair amount of CUPE members who feel it's their right to keep it, as they used to have it. But yeah, it's a bargaining chip. However, IMO it's backfired for them, as the entire city now considers them greedy because of it.

Side note, they do get to keep it. Any change would not effect current workers, only new workers hired in this new bargaining agreement. This fight is for workers who don't even work for the city yet.

 

[mangasparky]

Bankable sick days are in fact perks.

I didn't say anything to make you think otherwise. There is a big difference between a sick day, and a bankable sick day.