cdr108
Senior Member
but that would need ingenuity, thoughtfulness, efficiency and drive to think outside the box ...
traits that get dismissed and frowned upon within a public union environment.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Whoaccio
- Start date
but that would need ingenuity, thoughtfulness, efficiency and drive to think outside the box ...
traits that get dismissed and frowned upon within a public union environment.
kEiThZ
Superstar
My pet peeve in this area are transit strikes. To me a strike should be the last resort. If you stop collecting fares and make transit free, you'll win public sympathy while draining revenue from the transit operator, forcing them to make concessions sooner or later. Striking just pisses off the public, particularly the most vulnerable of the public who feel that the unions are using them as bargaining chips.
Plus work-to-rule at least provides a path of escalation. If you're striking and your demands aren't met you really have no 'next level' to take your labour action to.
Plus work-to-rule at least provides a path of escalation. If you're striking and your demands aren't met you really have no 'next level' to take your labour action to.
salvius
Active Member
Is this legal, though?
kEiThZ
Superstar
Why would it not be legal? And if it was illegal could you really see any politician suggesting that the bus drivers be prevented from working unless they collect fares? I think the TTC would even continue paying the workers during any work-to-rule campaign because they would not want service disrupted. To me that's a hell of a lot smarter than striking and being legislated back to work in 24-48 hours. It might even be poltically beneficial for a union to not collect fares and work for free during a strike, thus denying their employer revenue but still earning public sympathy.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Comparisons with Europe are not always balanced. The Europeans have traded a lot of their productivity gains in the workplace for more time off, resulting in a poorer material quality of life. I am not saying that this is right or wong, just that this is what has happened. They get more time off but in general they aren't as well rewarded (financially) as North Americans. As a result they live in smaller homes, with fewer things, but with more time off. We live in larger homes, with more stuff, multiple cars in the driveway and less time off. The ideal probably lies somewhere in between. I doubt most Europeans are happy to live in shoebox sized apartments (especially if they saw our suburban palaces). And I doubt most North Americans are happy working themselves to death to fill suburban McMansions that they barely live in. But other than vacations, the whole issue of work-life balanced needs to be looked at in a broader sense. It's not just vacations, but also things like overtime, commute times, flexible work arrangements (work from home), maternity/paternity leave (our 1 year is absolutely unfathomable to most Americans who get 6 weeks by the way), etc. For example, what concerns me more than vacations, is the lack of statutory holidays in Canada.
And while I generally agree with many European labour practices and policies, I would caution anyone who considers the grass to be significantly greener on the other side. Europe's labour policies are great if you are employed. But if you are unemployed, they are horrendous. Companies are extremely reluctant to hire new employees because of the difficulty in firing underperforming employees (particularly where unions are involved). And companies are equally reluctant to hire workers who might require time off for family reasons, etc. All this translates into unemployment rates during boom years that most North Americans would consider to be recession numbers. Is our public willing to trade employment for increased quality of life for the employed? Maybe a bit, but I doubt most Canadians would want to see Paris banlieu style unemployment in the suburban 416.
And while I generally agree with many European labour practices and policies, I would caution anyone who considers the grass to be significantly greener on the other side. Europe's labour policies are great if you are employed. But if you are unemployed, they are horrendous. Companies are extremely reluctant to hire new employees because of the difficulty in firing underperforming employees (particularly where unions are involved). And companies are equally reluctant to hire workers who might require time off for family reasons, etc. All this translates into unemployment rates during boom years that most North Americans would consider to be recession numbers. Is our public willing to trade employment for increased quality of life for the employed? Maybe a bit, but I doubt most Canadians would want to see Paris banlieu style unemployment in the suburban 416.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
OT, but do you have family in Europe? My extended family is scattered across Germany, and so I have spent innumerable nights observing their living arrangements and comparing it with North Americans that I know with similar incomes and career backgrounds. I would say that, size of dwelling aside, they generally enjoy a higher material quality of life with more durable houses, nicer furniture, better engineered cars and certainly more glamorous vacations than their counterparts on this side of the Atlantic.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I do have many family and friends there and close counterparts at work. And my observation is not the same. Most instructive for me, is the comparison between my standard of living and our NATO counterparts. Of this, the most immediate comparison is with our british friends, our closest ally in Europe. We routinely get British military members and civil servants who join our military or government agencies simply because the lifestyle here is better. We actually have dedicated processes to bring them over. One guy who transferred over recently, in my office, was the British liaison to Canada! He simply said that even with another 2-3 promotions he could not achieve the lifestyle of his average Canadian subordinate, back in the UK. And this is a guy at a rank level who makes a six figure salary in Canada....so I would imagine that he would be making a fair bit in the UK. When I hosted a bunch of professionals from his office, for a conference at Meech Lake, they simply could not believe that most of us could afford to own cars in Ottawa...an impracticality for many civil servants in London. They were even amazed at the price and service of the hotels in Canada. They could not believe that the Chateau Laurier costs them 200 bucks a night (120 pounds), a price that would get you a motel room in most major European capital cities. Arguably, the only thing they found funny was the concept of tipping wait staff.
They may have nice older houses (that's where the durability comes from). But there is no getting around the smaller living space. Some might think its charming. But for a lot of families with kids, they look at our suburbs with envy. The concept of each kid having their own room actually seems lavish for some Europeans I've met. I'd agree that the furniture is better but that's largely cause they buy less to begin with, so they spend more on each piece....and even on this point, there can be some debate. This is the land that gave the world Ikea after all.
I am not saying things are all bad in Europe. But I hate the rose-tinted glasses that many North Americans enamoured with Europe, have on (and trust me this is coming from a person who loves European cultures, food, art, architecture, etc.). There are many things in life that we are lucky to have....and there's quite a few things we could learn from our counterparts across the pond. As I said before, the truth lies somewhere in between.
Last edited:
lordmandeep
Banned
Well also do not forget higher taxes.
Like in Finland people have the trade off of individually being rich and poor or everyone being the same.
Even for a middle class family buying a nice car is a distant dream but they get spectacular govt services.
If like half your income is going to taxes what is going to happen!!
I rather pay lower taxes and have a shot at making something out of myself.
Like in Finland people have the trade off of individually being rich and poor or everyone being the same.
Even for a middle class family buying a nice car is a distant dream but they get spectacular govt services.
If like half your income is going to taxes what is going to happen!!
I rather pay lower taxes and have a shot at making something out of myself.
salvius
Active Member
I have *no* idea where you get this from. Their car ownership is actually higher in Finland than many other countries in EU; and less cars is a GOOD thing, because their government seriously invests in transit infrastructure.
Yeah, the GINI index in Europe is generally compressed (though some countries are pretty close to Canada), but why on earth is that horrid? There's fewer rich, yes, and fewer poor. The middle class is large and their standard of living is very comparable to ours. In some ways better, in some ways somewhat worse.
Maggie
Active Member
agreed, I've been to Finland and Estonia a couple of times and everyone I encountered there had a car or new someone close to them who had a car. The price of gas of course is higher there than here but that seems to be the standard across most of Europe. As for standards of living that I have encountered across Europe I found it very regional such as France and Germany were very comparable to here. Eastern Europe different story all together. On the whole I like the European life style they seem more family oriented compared to here.
Redroom Studios
Senior Member
just to address the size of homes and properties comparison brought up by Keithz...
I just wanted to make it clear that it should not be taken as a direct indicator of a lower economic standard of living. Really it just reflects a higher density of people in the smaller land mass of Europe. Space is at a premium and so more people will live in apartments, row houses or what would appear to us as down sized homes with perhaps a small "garden" instead of a yard. This is also responsible for the higher prices for less square footage. Because we live in a huge country that has relatively few people we have the luxury of more people living in single family homes with decent sized lots. The same reality can be seen between rural areas and urban areas within our own country...
I just wanted to make it clear that it should not be taken as a direct indicator of a lower economic standard of living. Really it just reflects a higher density of people in the smaller land mass of Europe. Space is at a premium and so more people will live in apartments, row houses or what would appear to us as down sized homes with perhaps a small "garden" instead of a yard. This is also responsible for the higher prices for less square footage. Because we live in a huge country that has relatively few people we have the luxury of more people living in single family homes with decent sized lots. The same reality can be seen between rural areas and urban areas within our own country...
lordmandeep
Banned
plus European cities have been around for some long time. Many cities are very old and established and are not growing that fast.
Proper permanent settlements of some cities have been around even before Roman times and have been inhabited ever since.
Most cities in NA started off really during the age of the car.
So that is the obvious reason for the change.
Proper permanent settlements of some cities have been around even before Roman times and have been inhabited ever since.
Most cities in NA started off really during the age of the car.
So that is the obvious reason for the change.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Europeans have smaller homes in part because of space, but also because as mandeep pointed out in large part due to their older cities. In the automobile era their high energy prices certainly have helped prevent sprawl. It would cost a small fortune to service a Mcmansion in Europe. That's why their homes are smaller even in the countryside where they have the room.
kettal
Banned
Exactly. If unions weren't run by incompetent idiots, they could be a lot more effective.
The CUPE strategy is
1. strike
2. get legislated back to work
3. ???
afransen
Senior Member
3. Arbitrator gives them everything they ask for.