Richmond IKEA - Employees locked out

[dvst8]

What's stupid is that part timers are getting the same strike pay as full timers. How the does the union justify that? (source: friend of a employee) People have bills to pay and families to feed. If they really cared about protecting the workers they would have settled along time ago instead of bickering and targeting the ex-union staff.

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by dat_steve

I agree to a certain extent. I don't know the entire Ikea strike story, however to play devil's advocate on your point, it's a free market. If someone doesn't like the pay, they should pursue other options. The "company" does not have an incentive to raise wages if there are people applying to the jobs at the current rate. just my 2c.

I understand that, but go where? The problem is good paying jobs these days are getting few and far between. Even people that have post secondary education are having trouble finding jobs and when they do they aren't exactly making 80k a year. Unions are far from perfect but neither is all these huge companies making billions on the backs of minimum wage employees. Soon the middle class will be dead and there will be the select few with all the money, and then everyone else.

In before "just work harder".

[freakshow]

I could care less about private companies that use Unions. That's their own problem.. but when government or pseudo government organizations are unionized, and my tax dollars are going to lazy ass workers who can't get fired, that's wrong.

[twdm]

Originally Posted by falcon

Aaaand, this is why I don't understand unions value... or their current place in society.

And when Canada becomes the next China, where everyone is so poor that they are forced to work in low paying jobs with shitty work conditions, I can see you asking how did it come to this.

When I see unions asking for more money every time they strike, I look at the financials. How long since their last pay? Rate of inflation vs their salary?

Don't kid yourself if you think companies can't afford to pay their employees more. If they couldn't, then they would be laying off workers, not growing in profit and sales.

There's a place for unions, and there are times when the union has unrealistic expectations. It is also unreasonable for people to get the same wages and benefits as unionized workers when they never fought for those wages or benefits. So I understand where they are coming from. It's no different from lazy assholes in group projects who do jack and still get the same mark as you when you hand in your project. I'm sure everyone has experienced this, or some people are those jackasses.

So for someone to just come out and say unions are useless, they have no purpose in society, I would say imagine if there were no unions, then think about what you would do as a CEO who only cares about the numbers and increasing the bottom line. If you could slash wages by 15% to increase your bonus, would you do it? Now apply this across the board. Company A slashes wages, company B sees the lower wages and follows suit. Company C slashes wages further, Company A follows suit and etc. At some point you end up with China, or at some point you end up with the rash of poverty issues in the US. Unions are there to keep the companies in check. If it was really financially not viable, they would not agree to all of these collective agreements.

[freakshow]

Most companies aren't unionized, and we're not exactly suffering from a national collapse of the economy and working force due to it. Most of my friends work in Union jobs, and they may hate Unions, but certainly love the benefits. Most of them wouldn't leave their union job because a non-union job would never compare.

This isn't about ensuring that there is a baseline standard, there are labour laws for that. This is about unions serving no one but themselves, and having companies (or in worse situations, tax payers) foot the bill.

And you definitely don't know how a CEO thinks. There is something called competition. Go ahead, slash your wages, and have your competitor take all your good people. Great move!

[quasi]

Originally Posted by twdm

If it was really financially not viable, they would not agree to all of these collective agreements.

That goes both ways doesn't it? If working for a certain wage isn't financially viable then nobody will do it and wages will rise.

I see it all the time in my line of work, when it's stupid busy wages go up as much as 100% or more and when it's slower they drop. If I'm not happy with what I'm making and they won't pay me more I can go somewhere that's willing to pay me more if the demand is there, if it's not well I'm SOL, pretty simplistic supply and demand.

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by quasi

That goes both ways doesn't it? If working for a certain wage isn't financially viable then nobody will do it and wages will rise.

I see it all the time in my line of work, when it's stupid busy wages go up as much as 100% or more and when it's slower they drop. If I'm not happy with what I'm making and they won't pay me more I can go somewhere that's willing to pay me more if the demand is there, if it's not well I'm SOL, pretty simplistic supply and demand.

Sounds like you're in a trade of some sort, which makes sense since when the economy's hot everyone needs you and when it's not you take what you can get.

But what about these companies that make more and more money every year, yet wages never go up?

[inv4zn]

Your arguments are made with points that are only applicable in theory - in the perfect world, your arguments would make sense, as they would balance corporate greed vs. the needs of the average worker.

All the anti-union sentiments however, stem from what is actually happening in real life. These unions are not protecting any worker, but rather the entity and the concept of a union - just like you're doing now.

Speaking of this IKEA fiasco, tell me how protection of wages and basic rights of workers can be achieved by demanding the firing of people who crossed the picket line.

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by inv4zn

Your arguments are made with points that are only applicable in theory - in the perfect world, your arguments would make sense, as they would balance corporate greed vs. the needs of the average worker.

All the anti-union sentiments however, stem from what is actually happening in real life. These unions are not protecting any worker, but rather the entity and the concept of a union - just like you're doing now.

Speaking of this IKEA fiasco, tell me how protection of wages and basic rights of workers can be achieved by demanding the firing of people who crossed the picket line.

Well it sounds like those 35 workers were part of the union and enjoyed the perks of it until they actually had to strike, at which point said fuck it and turned their back on the union. It's kind of understandable that if this does get resolved they wouldn't want these people back in their union working amongst them.

[inv4zn]

I ask because I don't know, but are unions "opt-in"?

I don't think many people would turn down a job because it's unionized...maybe the 35 didn't really have a choice?

[bomiheko]

The best solution IMO is use the union funds and buy shares of the company. Not only do you have greater control over wages, they also won't go completely overboard cause they need to keep the company afloat. Unions will also get an additional revenue stream from dividends.

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by inv4zn

I ask because I don't know, but are unions "opt-in"?

I don't think many people would turn down a job because it's unionized...maybe the 35 didn't really have a choice?

From my experience having worked in one before, if you work in a unionized workplace then after a certain amount of days worked you become part of the union. You can't really say "nah I'm good" or the next guy after you that gets his time in takes your job. So really at that point you would either say yes and decide to be a union worker, or quit.

[quasi]

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

Sounds like you're in a trade of some sort, which makes sense since when the economy's hot everyone needs you and when it's not you take what you can get.

But what about these companies that make more and more money every year, yet wages never go up?

Sort of but not really, I work as a project manager/estimator for a contractor but indirectly yes. I've worked a Union job before as well and wasn't a fan, probably wouldn't do it again.

It's like I say to my wife when she has her hand out after I have a winning session of poker when you start giving me money when I lose I'll start giving you money when I win. You want more money when times are good are you willing to write a cheque when times are bad or is it just a one way street? My company lost more money last year then all the bad years over the last 25 years combined maybe I should pay back last years wages?

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by quasi

Sort of but not really, I work as a project manager/estimator for a contractor but indirectly yes. I've worked a Union job before as well and wasn't a fan, probably wouldn't do it again.

It's like I say to my wife when she has her hand out after I have a winning session of poker when you start giving me money when I lose I'll start giving you money when I win. You want more money when times are good are you willing to write a cheque when times are bad or is it just a one way street? My company lost more money last year then all the bad years over the last 25 years combined maybe I should pay back last years wages?

So the solution is just pay the bare minimum forever in case the company has a rough patch? I bet overall your company has made a lot more money then it's lost or else you wouldn't be in business. I doubt Ikea would be in the red because their Richmond location makes more than minimum wage.

[inv4zn]

Your logic of No Union = Minimum Wage is utterly false, and you should stop using it in arguments.

There are plenty of non-unionized jobs that pay well with benefits, etc.

[quasi]

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

So the solution is just pay the bare minimum forever in case the company has a rough patch? I bet overall your company has made a lot more money then it's lost or else you wouldn't be in business. I doubt Ikea would be in the red because their Richmond location makes more than minimum wage.

No, I think everybody needs to get what there worth I was just rebutting the point about what about them making money and not dispersing it. I think that if someone feels they are underpaid or deserve more they should ask for more if that company isn't willing to give it to them then go somewhere else. If it's in the company's best interest as in it's better for them to pay you the higher wage then try and replace you they will. If they can get someone else to do your job for the same then the skills you bring to the table aren't really that great and you're not worth more money, you should either upgrade your skills or find another job that pays more for doing less.

[asahai69]

Shitty furniture, shitty food. The maze they make you walk around like caged rats is fucked. Not sure why people have such a hard on to go shop there.

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by inv4zn

Your logic of No Union = Minimum Wage is utterly false, and you should stop using it in arguments.

There are plenty of non-unionized jobs that pay well with benefits, etc.

If there's so many well paying jobs why is the middle class shrinking and the rich vs poor growing?

[BrRsn]

There's not many well paying jobs, but you cannot argue against the fact that unions killed the manufacturing sector in the united states. There's plants and old factory buildings that have been abandoned for years.

Now there's a push from investors/companies to retrofit/take over old factories to start up production on american soil, give americans jobs, and save on some of the shipping/taxes associated with production overseas -- and guess what? None of them are using unions; the same factories that were abandoned due to the cost necessary to operate them are now being re-opened, just with no unions.


how many times have you been working at your $11/hour unionized job and some new-hire from india/china/philippines/wherever starts working and in the back of your head you're thinking "why the hell is this dude working so hard?" -- because they don't realize they can slack off (..then you teach them the ways of Canada and they're just as lazy as you are lol). If I had a business, no way in hell I'd let a union into it

[twdm]

Originally Posted by quasi

That goes both ways doesn't it? If working for a certain wage isn't financially viable then nobody will do it and wages will rise.

Actually no. Unlike corporations, individuals working those jobs do not have the financial capital to weather the storm, nor do corporations need to eat, feed and clothe their families. Or if you're mcdonald's, you just say there's no qualified employees hire filipinos because no one else wants to work the shitty job with shitty pay.

[falcon]

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

I understand that, but go where? The problem is good paying jobs these days are getting few and far between. Even people that have post secondary education are having trouble finding jobs and when they do they aren't exactly making 80k a year. Unions are far from perfect but neither is all these huge companies making billions on the backs of minimum wage employees. Soon the middle class will be dead and there will be the select few with all the money, and then everyone else.

In before "just work harder".

1) Jobs are out there if you actually look, and aren't an idiot.
2) IKEA employees were not making minimum wage
3) Remember all businesses started from bottom, with usually one or two people with an idea. If you don't want them making money off the middle class, go start your own company. It ain't so easy. That... and the average IQ is pretty... average. It's not like just anyone is going to start up a company that will turn into a huge mega corp.

[falcon]

Originally Posted by twdm

And when Canada becomes the next China, where everyone is so poor that they are forced to work in low paying jobs with shitty work conditions, I can see you asking how did it come to this.

When I see unions asking for more money every time they strike, I look at the financials. How long since their last pay? Rate of inflation vs their salary?

Don't kid yourself if you think companies can't afford to pay their employees more. If they couldn't, then they would be laying off workers, not growing in profit and sales.

There's a place for unions, and there are times when the union has unrealistic expectations. It is also unreasonable for people to get the same wages and benefits as unionized workers when they never fought for those wages or benefits. So I understand where they are coming from. It's no different from lazy assholes in group projects who do jack and still get the same mark as you when you hand in your project. I'm sure everyone has experienced this, or some people are those jackasses.

So for someone to just come out and say unions are useless, they have no purpose in society, I would say imagine if there were no unions, then think about what you would do as a CEO who only cares about the numbers and increasing the bottom line. If you could slash wages by 15% to increase your bonus, would you do it? Now apply this across the board. Company A slashes wages, company B sees the lower wages and follows suit. Company C slashes wages further, Company A follows suit and etc. At some point you end up with China, or at some point you end up with the rash of poverty issues in the US. Unions are there to keep the companies in check. If it was really financially not viable, they would not agree to all of these collective agreements.

If I was a CEO, I'd look at ways to make money and slash expenses. So what? Is that not what capitalism is?

[twdm]

Originally Posted by dhillon09

how many times have you been working at your $11/hour unionized job and some new-hire from india/china/philippines/wherever starts working and in the back of your head you're thinking "why the hell is this dude working so hard?" -- because they don't realize they can slack off (..then you teach them the ways of Canada and they're just as lazy as you are lol). If I had a business, no way in hell I'd let a union into it

I can also tell you how many times people from my industry has been abused by their employer, given no meal breaks, or even washroom breaks for 8 hours. Which is why I went into the hospital instead as I have at least guarenteed meal breaks.

Just as there are lazy workers in unions, there are employers who are jackasses as well. There is no point in stereotyping union workers with comments that are untrue. If that was the case, I hope if you never get hurt and have to go into a hospital, since you just claimed every nurse, physiotherapist, pharmacist, etc in there is lazy and slacks off. I'm sure they'll be appreciative of your opinions of them.

[freakshow]

There are some industries where unions are or would be beneficial, but MOST unions today are simply not doing what they were originally intended for, and are abusing their power.

My wife worked as a chef.. and that industry could actually benefit from unions.. their working conditions/shifts got pretty ridiculous.. Having said that, there are also other ways to regulate industry without resorting to something as corruptible and power hungry as unions.

[Tr1ll]

Originally Posted by asahai69

Shitty furniture, shitty food. The maze they make you walk around like caged rats is fucked. Not sure why people have such a hard on to go shop there.

But the food is so cheap