The union debate thread (Split from BC Teachers thread)

[iEatClams]

-edit by Graeme S-

This thread has been split from the Teacher Strike thread because it was going OT but it was a good discussion thread.

Originally Posted by taylor192

This isn't just a problem with teachers, its every union that had the ability to collectively bargain. good employees never benefit from collective bargaining as they could readily command more individually.

I agree, however the opposite is also a problem of corporations.


Many would love to have 60 hour work-weeks and lower wages, and reduced regulations and standards. This is why, unfortunately, we still need unions.

As much as I love capitalism, certain aspects of it doesn't work. The market can't decide everything, and if the markets did there would only be a select handful of individuals owning everything with the majority being poor.

It's definitely a fine line to have policies that create and reward entrepreneurship and innovation while still protecting the average persons standard of living.

[goo3]

Read this today. Thought it was interesting:

What does shift in union membership mean for Canada? - The Globe and Mail

A traditional goal of private-sector unions is to increase labour’s share of income, at the expense of the share of income that goes to capitalists. But this model translates badly to the public sector, to the extent that that the role of ‘management’ is played by the government, and the role of ‘capitalists’ is played by taxpayers. Put bluntly, an important objective of public-sector unions is to transfer income from those who don’t work for the government to those who do. (Full disclosure: I am a member of a public-sector union.)

The objectives of public-sector unions are at best uncorrelated with those of their private-sector counterparts. Transforming these two disparate agendas into a common front is going to become a progressively thorny problem as time goes on.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by azndude69

As much as I love capitalism, certain aspects of it doesn't work. The market can't decide everything, and if the markets did there would only be a select handful of individuals owning everything with the majority being poor.

That is simply not true.

Read about how personal property ownership changed the economies in countries where previously the government owned all land rights - it might surprise you how much better the market is for the people than government.

[Gridlock]

The issue I have with public service unions is the comparison among provinces and districts.

Example: Alberta comes up for renewal, and get a decent raise. Perhaps they were coming up from behind. Then BC says, well, Alberta is 3% more, and our cost of living is so much higher! BC gets theirs, and Ontario, well they see BC as being so high and now we need a raise.

And soon, you have public service wages that are sky high.

We all know that a gov't job comes with great benefits and good, stable pay.

A friend works as a buyer for Vancouver, and started...started with 6 paid weeks vacation plus sick days and personal days.

So we're paying someone good money for the year, and pretty close to 2 months they aren't even there.

Then complain that private sector makes more money? I fail to see it at the comparable job level.

[iEatClams]

Originally Posted by taylor192

That is simply not true.

Read about how personal property ownership changed the economies in countries where previously the government owned all land rights - it might surprise you how much better the market is for the people than government.

I'm not implying that government should control everything and that we should be giving up personal property ownership.

It's pointless to always point to extremes when debating, An argument can be made for the other extreme where cartels and monopolies screw the consumers where only a handful benefit. Cause that's what happens in a truly open market without laws and government.

Developed countries are no longer fully benefiting from free markets. There's a trend towards lowered wages. Theres no benefit of replacing decent paying jobs with minimum wage jobs.

Government is inefficient, and markets are inefficient.
There needs to be a right mix of each.

The answer is usually somewhere in the middle.

Out before this becomes a pointless thread where no one is able to accept or listen to any other persons opinion but their own.

[MG1]

Originally Posted by azndude69

Out before this becomes a pointless thread where no one is able to accept or listen to any other persons opinion but their own.

True that.

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by Jermyzy

My brother is a teacher. Sure he makes less money than me right now. But when he retires, he's set for life with an indexed pension.

Originally Posted by Z3guy

What most people dont take into acct is an indexed pension....how many public or private companies offer this now?.....less than 2% I bet. How would you like a job, where you could in theory spend everything you make because when you retire, you have a indexed pension to live off of. Also, when you die, the pension can be transferred to your spouse...not 100% sure on that though.....

You guys make it seem like you're so hard done by.

Jermyzy: if you're truly a pharmacist, you're making at least 80K which is, believe it or not, more than most people make (including my colleagues in the public sector.) And if you're working for one of the big companies like Shoppers, you probably have some sort of RRSP contribution program. Any reputable company in the private sector either gives you shares, or matches your RRSP contributions (I used to work for a company that did just that.) I contribute around 40% to my pension plan; it isn't 50%, but it's close.

z3guy: You work in alcohol sales right? I know from my experience in your industry that guys like you have a good life. You get to travel the world on company dime, liquor basically sells itself, and good looking women are everywhere. If you're driving 3 luxury cars and supporting a family, you have it good - don't understate your situation.

You guys should ask taylor192 what he's done to secure his retirement - after all, he's stated multiple times on RS that he saved enough to secure his retirement before the age of 30.

[Meowjin]

if z3guy actually works for a liquor company doing sales im honestly fucking jealous cause our rep partys like a maniac wherever he goes.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by azndude69

I'm not implying that government should control everything and that we should be giving up personal property ownership.

It's pointless to always point to extremes when debating, An argument can be made for the other extreme where cartels and monopolies screw the consumers where only a handful benefit. Cause that's what happens in a truly open market without laws and government.

I'm not pointing to extremes, I'm using a very real example where government used to control land ownership and people suffered. Only once they were granted the right to land ownership were people better off. That's a truly open market, and benefited the people greatly.

A truly open market does not screw the consumer, as I've pointed out the consumer here (main street) has screwed themselves by requiring returns (8% from wall street) beyond what their country is producing (2-3% GDP increase). The only way out of this vicious circle is for the consumer to adjust their expectations (teachers take pay cuts). No amount of government intervention can make 2-3% into 8%.

[Jermyzy]

Originally Posted by Tapioca

Jermyzy: if you're truly a pharmacist, you're making at least 80K which is, believe it or not, more than most people make (including my colleagues in the public sector.) And if you're working for one of the big companies like Shoppers, you probably have some sort of RRSP contribution program. Any reputable company in the private sector either gives you shares, or matches your RRSP contributions (I used to work for a company that did just that.) I contribute around 40% to my pension plan; it isn't 50%, but it's close.

We're starting to get a little off topic here...the big difference is that teachers get an indexed pension plan, I'm not sure if you appreciate how important that is. That means even during a big recession where everybody else's portfiolios are being battered, they're still guaranteed the same amount of income. Meanwhile, I have to put in 15-18k/year myself to max out my RRSPs (I no longer work for a large company, but when I did, they only contribute 4%/ year which is only about $3k/year) and hope for a good return on investment in order to get the same amount of retirement income. Meanwhile, according to www.pensionsbc.ca teachers are getting 13%+ pension contribution (Employer contribution rates are currently set at : 13.33 per cent of your salary up to and including the YMPE, 14.83 per cent of your salary above the YMPE ). Since personal RRSPs are subject to market conditions, there is no guarantee that my RRSPs alone, even with maximum contributions, will be enough to retire on (unlike indexed govenment pension plans which are guaranteed). I'm not complaining about how much I make (despite the fact that BC is the lowest paying province for pharmacists - there is an abundance of pharmacists in BC right now). My point is, people are always saying that teachers are underpaid. But when you factor in their rich pension plan, they are not nearly as underpaid as people think they are. Considering that the teachers are already set for life upon retirement, are you prepared to give them a raise "just because they are the lowest paid teachers in Canada"? I have no problem with performance based compensation, which the teachers seem to be against (or at least the BCTF/union is). Are you willing to sacrifice cuts in other government services to give them this raise, because the money will have to come from somewhere...

[MG1]

Public sector indexed pension plan = not guaranteed.

Nothing in life is a guarantee, except for death.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Tapioca

You guys make it seem like you're so hard done by.

Jermyzy: if you're truly a pharmacist, you're making at least 80K which is, believe it or not, more than most people make (including my colleagues in the public sector.) And if you're working for one of the big companies like Shoppers, you probably have some sort of RRSP contribution program. Any reputable company in the private sector either gives you shares, or matches your RRSP contributions (I used to work for a company that did just that.) I contribute around 40% to my pension plan; it isn't 50%, but it's close.

z3guy: You work in alcohol sales right? I know from my experience in your industry that guys like you have a good life. You get to travel the world on company dime, liquor basically sells itself, and good looking women are everywhere. If you're driving 3 luxury cars and supporting a family, you have it good - don't understate your situation.

You guys should ask taylor192 what he's done to secure his retirement - after all, he's stated multiple times on RS that he saved enough to secure his retirement before the age of 30.

I think you missed their point.

Don't underestimate how valuable those indexed pensions are. To retire on 70% of your salary after 35 years of working you'd need to contribute 16% of your final salary every year. Considering your salary will increase over those 35 years as you climb the corporate ladder, its more like 20%+ of your current salary. Thus take any public sector salary and add 20% to get the true cost, and then realize they were already overpaid, and are now very much overpaid.

z3guy, there's actually a lot of private companies that still offer indexed pensions. I'm only guessing, yet I remember it being quite high, like 20-30% of private companies still do. My little brother has one at his civil engineering company.

[Jermyzy]

Originally Posted by MG1

Public sector indexed pension plan = not guaranteed.

Nothing in life is a guarantee, except for death.

from www.pensionsbc.ca


"You get your guaranteed basic pension for your life regardless of any other decisions you make about it. Pension options are meant to protect others—your spouse or other loved ones."

"The Teachers' Pension Plan provides a regular lifetime income for plan members who retire from work. The plan provides you with a lifetime pension, starting when you retire (earliest retirement age is 55). After your death, depending on what kind of pension option you choose at retirement, the plan may continue to pay pension benefits to your spouse for his or her lifetime, or to another beneficiary for a set period, or may pay a lump-sum payment to your estate."

[MG1]

Indexed pension is not a guarantee.

[MG1]

When shit hits the fan, nothing is guaranteed. Not even a guarantee.......

[Jermyzy]

^Fine, then let's just get rid of their "guaranteed" indexed pension plan and make it a market based retirement plan like everybody else. Let's see how many teachers are willing to give up their "guaranteed" indexed pension plans for a raise.

[MG1]

This thread is really about being jelly.

You guys don't like it because somebody is making such and such for this amount of work.

Now that ain't working, that's the way you do it
Let me tell you them guys ain't dumb
Maybe get a blister on your little finger
Maybe get a blister on your thumb

Look at that, look at that
I should have learned to count them pills..........



I don't care how much teachers, nurses, police firefighters make. If they get what they get, more power to them. I don't care if pharmacists count pills for a living and get paid whatever...... I don't get why others have to. If money isn't there, it isn't there. Teachers now, nurses next.

Now if this were more about unions..................

[Jermyzy]

^I'll agree with you there, it is about the unions. That was one of the points I made in an earlier post, how can the union be demanding an increase in wages right after the province announced a huge shortfall due to the HST fiasco, aka if the money isn't there, it isn't there.

[MG1]

Originally Posted by Jermyzy

^I'll agree with you there, it is about the unions.

Finally....................


Now I can tell you from experience about unions.

I worked at a processing plant for years (too many). It was in a non-unionized plant. One of the very few around, as all the others were unionized. The owner of the company promised the workers that if the plant stayed non-union, they would get whatever the union plant workers got. Benefits, raises, etc.

Sounds good, right? The workers get paid the same and no union dues, and the company kept chugging along without any disruptions.

There were times the big union wanted to get the workers to join. My fellow workers and I wouldn't have any of that. We were quite prepared to meet them at the front gates with baseball bats and machetes. It got ugly a few times. Discuss - do not want.

Anyway, the plant stayed union free. Then, the owner got old and the sons kind of took over and then the company grew and then there were shareholders....... profits, gotta make profits. Soon things started to change. Workers were expected to work longer hours. The workplace was not a safe place. Accidents started to happen. Management started to push production. I left the place before it really got bad. I found out recently that ...............edited this part out........, because reports were not filed properly. Other workers injured on the job were expected to come back early. One fellow was fired for not keeping up - labeled lazy, even though it was due to his injury never healing properly.

The workers, not being unionized, did not have a shop steward or a safety committee. Non-English speaking workers were bribed not to report to Workman's Compensation (Now WorkSafe BC).

Do I hate unions still? Yes, but not nearly as much as I used to. In fact, I'm not sure how I feel about them anymore.

Unions, whether it be the police, nurses, or teachers' have a mandate to protect their members. I appreciate that, but boy, oh boy, there's a lot of crap that goes on. Always two sides of the coin and a lot of politics. Right now, it all boils down to staying alive (union) and not looking after the interests of its members.

But what can you do?

Here's the funny thing. The biggest supporters of the union amongst the ranks are the ones who benefit the most from them. Poor workers, lazy workers, whiners, etc.

In a nutshell, unions are needed, but they need to keep up with and stay in tune with reality.

**I edited out a part of the story.......shouldn't dredge up tragic stories.

[Z3guy]

Originally Posted by MajinHurricane

if z3guy actually works for a liquor company doing sales im honestly fucking jealous cause our rep partys like a maniac wherever he goes.

if someone from Revscene contacting me about sponsoring a Revscene event (LDA+), I think I could figure something out

[Z3guy]

Originally Posted by taylor192

I think you missed their point.

Don't underestimate how valuable those indexed pensions are. To retire on 70% of your salary after 35 years of working you'd need to contribute 16% of your final salary every year. Considering your salary will increase over those 35 years as you climb the corporate ladder, its more like 20%+ of your current salary. Thus take any public sector salary and add 20% to get the true cost, and then realize they were already overpaid, and are now very much overpaid.

z3guy, there's actually a lot of private companies that still offer indexed pensions. I'm only guessing, yet I remember it being quite high, like 20-30% of private companies still do. My little brother has one at his civil engineering company.

When I worked at Molson Coors many years ago, some of the old timer's pensions were unbelievable...they had to hit the magic number of 85 (combination of yrs old and yrs of service...ie. 55yrs old and worked for Molson for 30yrs = 85). When they did this what they got;

1) 80% of your best 3yrs of salary for the rest of your life and when you pass on,it is transferred to your wife.
2) Medical benefits for life for you and spouse
3) Sometimes for senior mgmt, a car for life.
4) 4 dozen beer a month for the rest of your life.

These pensions were phased out, but you wonder why the older generations were so loyal to one company....this is why....why would you ever change jobs if you had a pension like this? plus selling beer in the 90s...was really fun.

[Glove]

im in a union,

and let me tell you, they really are a good thing, if youv never been in one, then you shouldnt really talk.

people in unions love them, people not in one, hate them.

again, it is about being jelly in the end.

maybe if there were more unions around, employers wouldnt be able to fire you and hire fob workers for half your salary.

I agree sometimes what we negotiate for is rediculous, but you should just see some of the shit the government wants to take away from us at the negotiating table, its also rediculous.

if they had their way, we would be worse off then the private sector.

[Z3guy]

Originally Posted by Jermyzy

from www.pensionsbc.ca


"You get your guaranteed basic pension for your life regardless of any other decisions you make about it. Pension options are meant to protect others—your spouse or other loved ones."

"The Teachers' Pension Plan provides a regular lifetime income for plan members who retire from work. The plan provides you with a lifetime pension, starting when you retire (earliest retirement age is 55). After your death, depending on what kind of pension option you choose at retirement, the plan may continue to pay pension benefits to your spouse for his or her lifetime, or to another beneficiary for a set period, or may pay a lump-sum payment to your estate."

All I know is I have to personally plan for my retirement, my company right now is pretty good, they provide us 7% of my salary in RRSP contributions. However, the trade off for a bigger job and higher salary is;

1) Absolutely no job security - I can get fired anytime, especially in sales (only as good as last yrs numbers). The regular severanance pkgs are 1 month for 1 yr of service.

2) No Pension - bascially I have to make my own pension.

[GC8]

I work for a telco company for 3 years and going with union, they are powerless now and like someone said most pro union people are lazy, whiners! some crazy if u ask me *I am younger and most pro union people are older*. IMO if u do your job well you will be rewarded, if you are not getting what you want go somewhere else or maybe you are not good haha gotta be realistic

[Z3guy]

Originally Posted by Glove

im in a union,

and let me tell you, they really are a good thing, if youv never been in one, then you shouldnt really talk.

people in unions love them, people not in one, hate them.

again, it is about being jelly in the end.

maybe if there were more unions around, employers wouldnt be able to fire you and hire fob workers for half your salary.

I agree sometimes what we negotiate for is rediculous, but you should just see some of the shit the government wants to take away from us at the negotiating table, its also rediculous.

if they had their way, we would be worse off then the private sector.

People in unions love them because deep down inside they know they are being paid more than they deserve. Why should long shoreman make $150K to $200K a year? because of their skill set? GP doctors dont even make that. Plus getting fired is next to impossible.

I would rather develop skills in mgmt, sales, welding, plumber, accounting etc. where your skills demand a higher wage.

Look at what happen to all the US autoworkers.......