To me, one important issue that’s being overlooked is that the employees who are planning to go on strike will being striking against the government (or at least against the company who contracts through the government - I’m not from Canada so I’m assuming thzt’s what a crown corporation is). In essense, the strikers are asking the government to cough up more money from its coffers. And that money has to come from somehere (eventually) either in the form of increase taxes or reduced funding from other government service. So the people aren’t necessarily striking against the crown corporation, but the people who provide the funds for their incomes (the taxpayers).
Which I have a problem with - not, per se unions in and of themselves. I feel strongly that people have the right to bargain collectively with private employers, but draw the line with unionized public employers. I’m not versed in the details regarding aspects of unionized government employment, but I would think something along the lines of a civil servant-type of system would be much more logical and beneficial system for everyone (that is, for people who are now unionized public employees). That way, the government isn’t put in the uncomfortable position of being the managerial adversary. And the employee would (in general) be compensated and protected accordingly (think of US Federal employees - maybe Canada has something similar).
I know, there were just a few people asking how much that was in American dollars, so I tacked it on. How well does the average Canadian salary compare to the cost of living in the area where the bus drivers went on strike?
A good question, when I lived in Canada (including 2 years in Vancouver), we figured that that the truth lay somewhat in between…perhaps about 1/2 way in between…the extremes of CN$1 = US$1 and using the actual exchange rate as a conversion. And that was at a time when the Canadian dollar was stronger and a fair amount of Canadians were cross-border shopping. [Which I never did really understand very much even at that time…I always supsected that the Canadians were going over, converting their CN$100 into US$80 and then saying, “Boy, oh, boy, what a bargain I got…This thing I bought for $12 (US) would have cost me $15 here in Canada!” Although, to be fair, I suppose there were certain items which were really cheaper here in the U.S.] My suspicion is that with the Canadian dollar now a fair bit weaker against the U.S. dollar and all those shopping centers near Bellingham, WA languishing with empty parking lots, that converting to US dollar using the exchange rate will give you artificially-low numbers. Indeed, here in Rochester, the feeling is that Canada is now quite a bargain!
I’ve noticed a pattern, both here on the board and IRL: anti-union people tend to be disproportionately from the ranks of those who make less than union people, or have had extremely poverty-stricken childhoods. I can’t for the life of me figure this one out, since these people would disproportionately benefit should unions once again become the force they were 30 or 40 years ago. Anyone care to explain?
On a related point to pantom’s, I will point out that there are second-order benefits to workers from unions that are hard to measure. I.e., unions benefit not just the workers who are in unions but also workers who are not in unions.
I work for a company that has never been unionized and has historically treated their employees fairly well. However, that is no longer clearly so true and recently morale has dropped and there were some attempts surfacing in the manufacturing area to initiate union organizing. All of a sudden, the company, which had (at least according to the workers) been pretty much ignoring their grumblings was all ears. “Let’s get together and talk,” company representatives said, “We are sure we can work these things out by sitting down together without involving a third party.” So, even in non-union companies / industries, the threat of unionization can help workers have their complaints and concerns addressed.
I think it’s a case of being close to the situation, so you get to see the flaws as well as the benefits.
I did have one job where I belonged to a union. It was a good job, but the union was the worst aspect about it, because the union actively interfered with my ability to get ahead.
It didn’t matter if I worked better with customers, had better language skills (bilingualism is pretty important in Quebec), and actually performed my job with more competency than others in the company. Seniority determined all.
People who had worked at the company longer than I got to pick vacation time, preferred shifts, preferred jobs (even if they lacked the skills to actually perform the task necessary), and everything else.
The whole idea of being recognized for merit is thrown out the window with a union.
The job I have now is at a non-union company, in a heavily unionized industry. My pay scale and benefits are considerably higher than they would be if I was doing the same job across town (although still not the $44k that a bus driver makes )
And as for a strike messing up my life…
There are many ways a union can make life hell for management, without inflicting pain on people who can least afford it. In this case, why shut down public transportation for a city… and strand students, the elderly, and everyone else who depends on a bus?
Why not a)do the routes, but not collect fares?
b) picket around the homes of management?
c) refuse to do paperwork?
I see a strike as an attack, and a bus strike attacks people who depend on public transportation. It gets a significant proportion of the public angry, but does not directly affect management. In this case, it’s actually helping management, because the company no longer has to pay salaries. It’s the wrong tool for the task, but try telling that to union reps.
Kimstu and Jodi, remind me to set your home on fire next time I’m angry at your landlord.
I currently belong to a union (United Steelworkers of America), and I’ve run across the same sort of thing. Workers at my plant progress automatically through a series of pay grades based entirely on seniority, until they reach a certain level. Once at that level, further progress is based primarily on company need and the passage of a written skills test based on one’s specific trade. In my case, I’m an electrician, so my test would be based on electrical/electronic theory, troubleshooting scenarios, code stuff, etc. I’ve seen some of the questions on the tests and talked to some of the people who have passed them, and I’m pretty sure that based on my on-the-job experience and theoretical knowledge that I’d have a pretty good chance of passing strictly on merit. But I’m still required to progress through the lower levels; it doesn’t matter how good a job I do, I still have to put my time in. There are some other nuances to the system that would take too much time to address, but in general, seniority plays a huge role in advancement here.
I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, it’s frustrating to see people who are borderline incompetent advancing through the ranks simply because they know how to punch a clock every day. On the other hand, before the current system was introduced, there was no automatic progression or skills-based advancement written into our contract, and the company was able to deny raises to very qualified people simply because they could. This de facto wage freeze was one of the reasons that the union went on strike a couple of years ago. The current system is a compromise between the union’s desire to give all benefits to seniority, and the company’s desire to pay people as little as possible. It’s not perfect, but in an adversarial system, there’s not much else that can be done, IMO. It would be nice if everyone could just get along and understand each other, but that simply doesn’t happen in a large company like mine (~9,000 hourly workers at last count).
The workers have the right to strike, but probably don’t have the right to refuse to do work while being paid for it. IANA labor lawyer, but I’d think that management would be within their rights to discipline them in that case.
They could do that, I suppose, provided that they are able to obtain permits to picket a private residence. But what’s the difference between picketing a home and picketing their place of work, from a public-irritation perspective?
Union tactics encompass a pretty wide range, from what I’ve seen. There are rule book slowdowns, sick outs, sit down strikes (where the striking workers in a factory simply sit down right on the factory floor, a way of ensuring that management can’t simply replace the strikers with someone else 'cause they first have to get the strikers out) as well as regular everyday run-of-the-mill strikes.
Management tactics are pretty wide ranging too, from trying to promote the leaders to management to eviscerate the movement, to firing and/or blacklisting workers with a history of union membership or union organizing.
Both sides have upon occasion resorted to violence. Employers can and have used the power of the state to employ violence for them.
Life is not a game, people. Whatever you make you’re making not because you earned it, as much as you may want to believe this, but because whoever’s employing you feels, whether correctly or no, that he HAS to pay you that amount to keep you. Believe me, he’s not paying you a penny more than he needs to to keep you, whether you’re union or not. If you’re not union, the second you’re no longer useful, you’re out the door, at least here in the U.S., where employment contracts specifically state that your employment is at will. Now that we’re diving towards recession, a lot of people are going to be reminded (I’m hoping I’m not one of them, of course) of this painful fact.
Taking anything less than an utterly merciless attitude towards your employer is just foolishness. And management will very frequently take the attitude that an employee or contractor who doesn’t know his own worth is not a good risk for either hiring or keeping around.
And they’d be right.
Barbarian: *Kimstu and Jodi, remind me to set your home on fire next time I’m angry at your landlord. *
Sorry, fella. Striking is not a crime (not for most workers, at least). Attempts to imply an analogy between legally striking employees and arsonists don’t accomplish anything except to diminish the amount of sympathy that I, as a fellow bus rider, originally felt for your predicament.
As for the more substantive points in your post, they’ve been addressed already by pantom and headshok, so I’ll let it go at that.
This is such a non sequitir in the context of this discussion that I assume it must be code. Therefore, I will reply in kind: The black cat is over the fence. Repeat: The black cat is over the fence. You know what to do.
)