CUPE, TTC who's next?

[healer677]

I live across the street from a public school - for God knows how long the caretakers haven't been picking up the trash the kids have been liberally throwing on their front steps.

The problem is - the trash is blowing all up and down the street and on to my front lawn.

Are these CUPE members currently drawing a salary? If so - WHY AREN'T THEY DOING THEIR FARKING JOBS!

Now the TTC is going to strike.....hmmm..... I'm really starting to get sick of these unions.

I guess a good salary, with all the benefits you can think of isn't enough....we might as well give them lifetime job security as well. I've always wondered how well these union workers would do in an open market environment. :mad:

[chd]

Take The Trash Bag It And Drop It In The Office Of The
School
Tell Them Next Time No Bag
I Know It Sounds Crazy
But Some Times Crazy Things Get Quick Actions

[rubmeister100]

I've always wondered how well these union workers would do in an open market environment.:

They wouldn't. That's why they are in a union. MANY people seek out just those type of jobs where they can work in mediocrity.

A fucking bus driver earning $57,000 a year plus full benefits?!?!?

And the snivelling union boss takes out FULL page newspaper ads saying all the piour souls are looking for is a "Fair" deal?

How's this for "fare":

NURSES have more training (2 yers of college), work harder, have to WIPE ASSES and clean up blood and more.

VERY few make much more than $40k.

And they will have to pay MORE of their pay to go to their jobs at Sick Kids, Princess Margaret and other downtown hospitals jsut to pay for the bus drivers "fair" deal.

Anyone EVER tempted to jump into one of these idiot's idling buses when they run in (with the engine running) for a coffee and block a whole lane of traffic?

Just to drive it around the corner and see him get in shit? :p

[Truncador]

CUPE is about one step removed from a terrorist organization. Big Unions are even worse than organized crime in that they comprise a parallel power that openly defies the authority of the government elected by the People of Canada. The likes of the Mafia, outlaw bike gangs, etc. merely break the laws passed by the government; outfits like CUPE seek to overthrow the authority of government altogether and replace it with their own.

[chd]

Gov. Should Have Some Onions And Make It [ttc]
An Essincial Service
Same With Teachers

[healer677]

No wait!

You guys will find this amusing - my girlfriend actually started to clean up our yard then wandered across the street to try to clean up the sidewalk of the school.

Some burly yahoo actually had the balls to threaten her and told her not to clean it up. Mind you I wasn't there and I doubt this Angelino would have had the nerve to tell me that. But then again I wouldn't be sweeping the sidewalk he should have been cleaning anyway.

If we had real leadership in goverment these guys should have been "Reaganed" a long time ago. I don't think these yoyo should hold a city hostage with their idiotic demands.

[Keebler Elf]

CUPE is about one step removed from a terrorist organization. Big Unions are even worse than organized crime in that they comprise a parallel power that openly defies the authority of the government elected by the People of Canada. The likes of the Mafia, outlaw bike gangs, etc. merely break the laws passed by the government; outfits like CUPE seek to overthrow the authority of government altogether and replace it with their own.

Bullshit.

[Keebler Elf]

I live across the street from a public school - for God knows how long the caretakers haven't been picking up the trash the kids have been liberally throwing on their front steps.


That's a management problem. And it probably has a lot to do with the fact that the Tories hacked n' slashed the education system so badly that there is too much work for too few caretakers. Heck, for all you know the caretakers have been outsourced to some company that's paying below minimum wage to illegal immigrants.

[Keebler Elf]

NURSES have more training (2 yers of college), work harder, have to WIPE ASSES and clean up blood and more.


Real nurses have a university degree and make a lot more than $40K.

p.s. your union-hating bias is showing...

[Keebler Elf]

Gov. Should Have Some Onions And Make It [ttc]
An Essincial Service
Same With Teachers

Making things an essential service increases the total labour costs. When something is deemed essential, contract disputes that cannot be resolved go to binding arbitration where unions, on average, gain more than they would through normal collective bargaining (in a nutshell, the arbitrator usually splits the difference rather than one side winning and the other side losing; plus, union members do not suffer lost wages due to being on strike).

But all that is moot b/c the TTC is not an essential service. Neither are school teachers. They both provide a valuable service which, when withdrawn, creates a great deal of inconvenience, but inconvenience is not the same thing as being essential. And there is no right to not be inconvenienced in Canada. There is a right to health care and safety (e.g. the police).

[Sheik]

Keebler,

Unions have outlived their usefulness and they do not understand that there is no more money to go around. They work in the public sector which means that they know the govt can be forced to mortgage our future to pad their pockets.

Remember Rae Days? The school unions ripping up the proposals from a socialist govt and whooping it up in front of the cameras? I will never forget that image of greed at its worst.

Simply put, we cannot afford it and if you dont want to work for those wages then byebye, we'll replace you with people that will work harder for the current wages. Unfortunately the unions have the laws on their side that prevents us from doing exactly that.

Now lets go over to the private sector, auto unions for example. Everytime they get a wage increase the cost of the new cars go up and that in turn creates a ripple effect on the economy. Cost of living goes up all around.

[healer677]

The ineffectiveness of unions today are glaring. Is anybody in North America violating any child labor laws? Not that I know. Unsafe work places? None that I've heard.

If a company wants to close a plant down and move ops to Mexico what's the union going to do? Dick, nothing, nada, zilch, zero - they can't do squat about it. So who are they protecting but themselves. Padding their own pockets at the expense of the real people doing the real work.

If an organization wants to slam a union in it's place - what's the union going to do? Nothing. For example - WalMart and later on in the year, the NHLPA. They want to talk a big game but if the owners/ organizations really want to teach them a lesson - they will be dealt a hard lesson.

60k, full benefits, medical,dental, JOB SECURITY to drive a bus! to empty waste paper baskets in a public school! I don't think so.

I say contract it all out to real companies - companies that can not only provide the service but remove all this griping and threats of strikes from union employees. Best offer wins. The city will probably save money this way.

[oldjones]

Real nurses have a university degree and make a lot more than $40K.

p.s. your union-hating bias is showing... Seconding Keebler, nurses also belong to a union, go on strike now and then and still are paid far less than they're worth.

We would have have a far better health care system I am sure, if the nurses called the shots instead of the doctors. Or the politicians.

Now back to your union-bashing, and do mention how well you negociated your own salary, benefits and conditions of work and safety won't you?

[oldjones]

The ineffectiveness of unions today are glaring. Is anybody in North America violating any child labor laws? Not that I know. Unsafe work places? None that I've heard.…edit… If it wasn't for the unions, I and my fellow workers would have been sent into three hazardous workplaces in the last year and a half. The unions answer their telephones promptly; nine months too late, I got my first communication from the WSIB. I have also seen more than one child worked to the point of exhaustion over a twelve hour plus work day, and it was the unions and not the government that put a stop to it. And all that's in the nice, cushy film businesss, it gets way worse as the wage rates go down: Remember the garbage filled warehouse that collapsed? Wasn't that someone's workplace? The guy crushed in the frozen food place where the falling merchandise took out a wall? He worked there. The Burlington riggers whose scaffolding killed them? How safe was that workplace? Where do you think the rules that might have protected those people came from?

I am so glad you included "not that I know". The reason you "haven't heard" is because those battles were joined and more or less won years ago. But this stuff is like fighting infectious diseases, let down your guard and it'll be right back more deadly than ever. I'm sure you wouldn't go round telling people you've never seen germs, and you don't know of any epidemics so handwashing's useless now, would you.

[impala77]

I am so glad you included "not that I know". The reason you "haven't heard" is because those battles were joined and more or less won years ago. But this stuff is like fighting infectious diseases, let down your guard and it'll be right back more deadly than ever. I'm sure you wouldn't go round telling people you've never seen germs, and you don't know of any epidemics so handwashing's useless now, would you.

I couldn't agree more. I'm just getting ready to start a new unionized job in the construction industry and if it wasn't for the fact that we have a very strong union I wouldn't dare approach it. Contractors can easily cut corners to save time and money but never think of the consequences. There aren't enough ministry of labour inspectors to cover the entire province and while legislation works to a point; I feel much better knowing all I have to do if I have concerns is call my union rep.

Not every union is the same and while some of them seem to be more bloated than others to say that all of them have served their purpose is too large a generalization.

[trek5]

NURSES have more training (2 yers of college), work harder, have to WIPE ASSES and clean up blood and more.

VERY few make much more than $40k.



NURSES who are registered , have a 4 year university degree . you are confused with PSW's and RPN's who do the grunt work with less education .

In May , LCBO is set to strike , not over wage increase but job security (so they say ) .

[cyrus]

Unions have their usefulness i.e., lobbying for safety & related labor laws against abuse or mismanagement however salary negotiation should not have been one of them.
Salary negotiation should be set by market not though extortion!
Why would NHL players need a union to negotiate multi million dollar salaries!
TTC is another example of union gone bad. Over years, Services have been getting worse, buses aged beyond repairs with no replacement in sight; subway is now breaking down more often than ever and in summer time you sweat wet because the air conditioners inside the cars are either shout down to save fuel or they are broken down, fairs are going up to ceiling to a level that many people need to chip into their food money to cover the cost of transportation to & back from the work.
Yet every year TTC budget has been going up and still they keep howling for more! They don't care if the city has to cut the police budget or raise taxes. Now even with part of the gas tax, they are still predicting deficit in their budget!
Why? To pay for their bus drivers’ exuberating salaries (52 to 67K+ range depending on seniority!)
How could a bus driver salary be at par or more than a university grad with a years of workplace experience is beyond me!
I think it is time to have our Union laws changed back to support what their original purpose were a century ago sooner is better than later for the good of the nation IMO!

[strange1]

Although the TTC is quick to strike, CUPE has been trying to negotiate for a year and a half without a contract. If you want to talk about responsibility, caretakers should be taking care of building maintenance, NOT cleaning up after kids who are too lazy to put their lunch in a garbage can. If ther's garbage on you lawn, blame the damn kids, not the people trying to keep the building standing.

By the way, the NHLPA is about as relevant to any discussion of unions as Bill Gates is in a talk about the average working man.

[cyrus]

...By the way, the NHLPA is about as relevant to any discussion of unions as Bill Gates is in a talk about the average working man.
On the contrary it so clearly highlights the greed and exploitation of our laws that I bet it will be quoted in the future textbooks on the discussion of Unions!

[oldjones]

Unions have their usefulness i.e., lobbying for safety & related labor laws against abuse or mismanagement however salary negotiation should not have been one of them.
Salary negotiation should be set by market not though extortion!

…edit… And what is the market, if not negociation between the buyer and the seller? The employer wants to purchase my labour, she delegates to her VP of Labour Relations, I delegate to my Union President. They negociate—I hope happily for both sides—and come up with a price. If it's unhappy, management may refuse to buy—that'd be a lockout, like the NHL—or labour to sell—that'd be a strike, like the TTC. Either way, no deal, that'd be the market at work. What's your problem with that?

[someone]

And what is the market, if not negociation between the buyer and the seller? The employer wants to purchase my labour, she delegates to her VP of Labour Relations, I delegate to my Union President. They negociate—I hope happily for both sides—and come up with a price. If it's unhappy, management may refuse to buy—that'd be a lockout, like the NHL—or labour to sell—that'd be a strike, like the TTC. Either way, no deal, that'd be the market at work. What's your problem with that?

I take it that you have no problems with the firm hiring other nonunionized workers if they don't like the price your union president offers. After all, in most markets you are not restricted in terms of who you can buy from. Otherwise, you can't really claim it is a market at work.

[Keebler Elf]

Unions have outlived their usefulness and they do not understand that there is no more money to go around. They work in the public sector which means that they know the govt can be forced to mortgage our future to pad their pockets.


Obviously you don't know very much about unions at all. Maybe that's your choice.

Unions have a strong presence in the public sector b/c the workers got sick and tired of being treated like shit by their employer (the gov't). Most public sector workers didn't start out being unionized; they were part of "associations" that by-and-large had a good working relationship with the gov't. As time went on and the gov't started treating said workers worse and worse, workers began to replace their associations with unions (an association being a watered-down version of a union).

If there's no more money to go around, then why do managers get pay raises or COLA or performance bonuses? Seems like that little phrase is code for "no more money for you".

Every so often I'll hear someone without a clue chipping in their two cents that "unions have outlived their usefulness". And it's always the people who haven't got a clue about what it is that unions do. It's always the people that think it's all about the cash and that's all that unions are there for. And it's always the people that are envious of the things unions have negotiated for their members. Yes, that's right, negotiated. That means the gov't agreed to it. And if the gov't doesn't agree with what's on the table, then a strike/lockout occurs. Just like right now with the TTC. That's the way the system is designed to work. And it works well. Collective bargaining results in a negotiated settlement more than 95% of the time. Strikes have been steadily declining for the past 20 years.

Here's a tip: go educate yourself about what unions really do. Talk to a union member who doesn't have a chip on his shoulder or an axe to grind. Talk to a, GASP!, manager who understands the role that unions play (I've been surprised by conversations I've had with senior managers from some of Toronto's largest and most important organizations who agree whole-heartedly that unions have a relevant and valuable role in the workplace; they may not like the hassles of dealing with them all the time, but they recognize and readily admit their legitimacy - something that the generally ignorant joe-blow hasn't got a clue about). Talk to an arbitrator or lawyer who can tell you why unions are a fundamental part of the Canadian labour relations system that has kept out economy relatively free from general strikes and mass violence over the past 50 years.

[Keebler Elf]

Yet every year TTC budget has been going up and still they keep howling for more! They don't care if the city has to cut the police budget or raise taxes. Now even with part of the gas tax, they are still predicting deficit in their budget!
Why? To pay for their bus drivers’ exuberating salaries (52 to 67K+ range depending on seniority!)

Wow, has the media got you snowed. The TTC budget goes up every year b/c gov't had ignored maintenance for decades, resulting in sky-rocketing costs of maintaining infrastructure. Labour costs are a drop in the bucket (of the last $0.25 increase on TTC fares, the current union proposals would amount to $0.02 of that total).

The TTC is a well-paying job. If you're jealous of that fact, then go apply for a position; they're hiring all the time. Of course, you wouldn't want to be a bus driver now would you? Having to deal with all those griping commuters, limited future job prospects, working weekends and odd-shifts. No, you wouldn't want to work it but you have no problem begrudging TTC workers the compensation they are paid to do the job few other people want...

[Keebler Elf]

I say contract it all out to real companies - companies that can not only provide the service but remove all this griping and threats of strikes from union employees. Best offer wins. The city will probably save money this way.

That's what most people think. Heck, I would think that way too if I didn't know any better.

The empirical evidence is, at best, no change or minimal change in costs and, at worst, poorer levels of service provision and higher costs overall. The classic example is a study done of garbage collection in New Jersey. The work was privatized and costs went up!

The problems with contracting out are many, but they aren't obvious to joe-average who doesn't know any better. It's only after the change has been made and costs go up that people realize what a mistake they've made.

So how do costs go up? Well, to begin with, management costs rise b/c there needs to be a mechanism to ensure the contracted party is doing the job that it said it would do. This is very expensive to do. It's much easier to have supervisors overseeing the job on a daily basis then it is to somehow monitor what another company is doing and how they are doing it when you don't have anyone overseeing them on a daily basis. Usually you don't know something's gone wrong until well after the fact.

Second, private companies have more interest in profit and less interest in service provision. I've seen it before and I'll see it again; as soon as something gets contracted out the third party cuts every corner it can to do only the bare minimum that it must. And there's no mechanism for the payer (e.g. gov't) to supervise/reprimand the third-party employees who are making lacklustre efforts for lacklustre pay.

Third, service levels that go down end up costing even more in the long run. Mistakes, when they ultimately get discovered, must get fixed and that often ends up costing a bundle.

The problem with contracting out is that it appears to save so much costs upfront that everyone falls for it. But they don't see all the hidden costs that end up making the whole endeavour more costly than it was to begin with, usually with less service to show for it.

As for "the best offer wins", try renovating your house with that logic and see what you end up with :rolleyes:

[chd]

KEEBLER

Is there ever a time when any level of gov.
can say that is in the tax payers best intrests
to try and find another way of providing the service a union does.
To me C.U.P.E. is a bit different because it's employer is not a private
company.

[Keebler Elf]

I take it that you have no problems with the firm hiring other nonunionized workers if they don't like the price your union president offers. After all, in most markets you are not restricted in terms of who you can buy from. Otherwise, you can't really claim it is a market at work.

Don't know much about labour law, do ya? ;)

Scab labour is legal in Ontario (except during the life of an existing collective agreement).

If you agree to a contract that says you won't hire non-union workers, then hell yeah I would expect you to abide by the terms that you agreed upon. That is the market at work in that you agreed to those terms. That was part of the deal you struck.

Now, if it comes time to renegotiate your contract and you don't like the terms being presented to you, then you have the right to hire replacement workers and try to continue operations without your fully trained, experienced, knowledgeable staff. And we'll see how long you can compete in the free market with those other employers who begin to strip you of your market share.

[chd]

"Private companies have more intrest in profit"
I thought that was the idea to make a profit
but maybe i am just an average-joe who does not know better

Look i am for unions and their rights but the tax payers has a right
to get the most out of their $$

You can't say with a wide brush that the private sector would not
provide a better value to any service.

The gov. has a responsiblity to deliver all services to the tax base
at the best value .

[Keebler Elf]

KEEBLER

Is there ever a time when any level of gov.
can say that is in the tax payers best intrests
to try and find another way of providing the service a union does.
To me C.U.P.E. is a bit different because it's employer is not a private
company.

Well, first off, a union doesn't offer any service to the gov't; it's members do. A union merely represents the workers.

I'm sure there are situations when outsourcing may be in the best interests of the gov't and taxpayers of Ontario. But the TTC isn't it. You privatize the TTC and you'll see fares skyrocket; you cap the fares and you'll see no interest from private enterprise in running the TTC. Firms are in business to make profit; you limit that profit too much and no firm will enter the business. The TTC cannot survive as an independent company; it requires gov't funding to make it feasible. That whole fiasco played out in the energy sector when the Conservatives tried privatizing it and the whole plan blew up in their face as prices jumped.

The problem with your question is that you assume the end product from unionized workers is worse than the end product done by non-unionized workers. Whether that's true or not is highly contested; what is known is that the answer is not as black-and-white as people think it is. Yes, unions tend to lower productivity and profit. But unions also tend to increase output (on the whole), improve the workforce capital of a company (thru training, for example), and give employees "voice" that they probably would not otherwise have.

The problem with talking about the context of gov't is two-fold. First, gov't believes (and I agree with it) that it has a role to play as a leader for other employers to follow. That's part of the reason why gov't is the first to adopt progressive employment laws. It's very hard to ask employers to pay more to employees or give more benefits when the gov't isn't doing that itself. The other problem is that gov't isn't a business; it's not about making a profit. Gov't is about providing services and often those services cost much more than they can possibly take in. So to treat gov't like a business is a fundamental mistake from the outset. The aim should be providing a certain level of service for a certain level of cost. We can argue over what those levels should be, but simply going for lower costs ignores the service part of the equation.

Finally, did you know that the Ontario gov't has one of the most qualified, best trained workforces in Canada? Same with the federal gov't. The average gov't employee has at least a university degree; the same cannot be said for the average private-sector employee. The problem is peoples' perception that gov't employees all sit behind a counter and renew your driver's license. They don't. But one of the benefits and aims of unions is to raise the wages for ALL workers, not just those at the top. So low-level gov't employees are usually paid more than their private sector equivalent; but high level employees are usually paid less.

[Keebler Elf]

"Private companies have more intrest in profit"
I thought that was the idea to make a profit
but maybe i am just an average-joe who does not know better

Look i am for unions and there rights but the tax payers has a right
to get the most out of their $$

You can't say with a wide brush that the private sector would not
provide a better value to any service.

The gov. has a responsiblity to deliver all services to the tax base
at the best value .

I agree with most of what you say, but I don't agree with the idea that the point of gov't is to make a profit. And if you think you're going to get better service from a third-party contractor, you are dreaming.

The city of Toronto has one of the best transportation services throughout North America in the TTC. It's just that people like to think that the grass is greener on the other side. For the money that is put into the TTC by gov't, the service we receive is very good. But that's not to say that the service we receive is everything we expect it to be; it's just that's the level of service we can expect for the amount that is being put into it.

And, no, I don't think that gov't is some kind of monolithic entity that can do no wrong and is the answer to all of our problems. But until I see a feasible alternative that takes more into account that just the immediate reduction in labour costs, I'll stick with what we've got.

[chd]

I Am Not Saying The Non Union Work Would Be Better
In The Ttc Case It Would Make Sence To Keep A Union Labour
Force
But If There Are Other Areas Were You Could Get Non Union
Work Even If The Quality Was Less But The Cost To The Tax Payer
Was Reduced And The Ratio Made Sence I See Nothing Wrong
With That
There Are Cupe Jobs That Even Thou They Were Neg. In Good Faith
The Time Has Come To Look At Another Way Of Providing The
Service

Elf I Respect Your View Points But I Think The Time Has Come
For The Whole Way In Which Gov. Delivers The Service To The Tax Payer To Be Looked At

[chd]

I Never Said The Point Of Gov, Is To Make A Profit
I Just Took It As A Slight That Private Companys Make Profit
If That Was Not You Point
I Stand Corrected

[someone]

Don't know much about labour law, do ya? ;)

Scab labour is legal in Ontario (except during the life of an existing collective agreement).

I would say that I know more about labour law than you do as you have clearly never heard of the Rand formula.


If you agree to a contract that says you won't hire non-union workers, then hell yeah I would expect you to abide by the terms that you agreed upon. That is the market at work in that you agreed to those terms. That was part of the deal you struck.
Under the Rand formula there is no choice. Even if nonunion workers can be hired, they must still pay union dues. For better or worse, this effectively rules out mixed union/nonunion work places.


Now, if it comes time to renegotiate your contract and you don't like the terms being presented to you, then you have the right to hire replacement workers and try to continue operations without your fully trained, experienced, knowledgeable staff. And we'll see how long you can compete in the free market with those other employers who begin to strip you of your market share.
I have worked in jurisdictions with both the Rand formula and ones with voluntary unionism. I doubt if you have as all you seem to know is the Ontario system. The point of my post is that, good or bad, you can’t say compulsory unionism is the market in action.

[oldjones]

I take it that you have no problems with the firm hiring other nonunionized workers if they don't like the price your union president offers. After all, in most markets you are not restricted in terms of who you can buy from. Otherwise, you can't really claim it is a market at work. Depends on the contract terms, and the supply of and demand for the services of the workers, doesn't it?

Most companies are too aware of their own best interests to try to start all over with an entirely new labour force. It's obviously easier to replace WalMart workers than star hockey players. But it has been done.

Most folks setting up a contract to supply or buy something, be it widgets or workers are smart enought to protect their position when the contract ends and it's time to renew or cancel, and it's usually a lot harder to cancel than to re-negociate. Why would labour contracts be much different?

In what way are union contracts not part of ordinary market economics? If you insist on being on the worst terms possible with your client/supplier you'll have a hell of a time in all your dealings. If you understand that your arrangement benefits you both, you'll see your best interests are served by working together. Pretty basic stuff I'da thought. Labour-management relations aren't much different. Except for the silly rhetoric.

[oldjones]

…edit…But I have to admit, after hearing what goes on at Ontario Power Generation, I think all the "Brothers and Sisters" should get a job in the private sector and see just how the other half lives. As long as the CEO sits in traffic on the 400 instead of using the 'copter that's supposed to be checking powerlines as his limo to the cottage. Speaking of how the other half lives.

[Truncador]

In what way are union contracts not part of ordinary market economics? [...] Pretty basic stuff I'da thought. Labour-management relations aren't much different. Except for the silly rhetoric.

And the use of violence ;)

[someone]

Depends on the contract terms, and the supply of and demand for the services of the workers, doesn't it?

Most companies are too aware of their own best interests to try to start all over with an entirely new labour force. It's obviously easier to replace WalMart workers than star hockey players. But it has been done.

Most folks setting up a contract to supply or buy something, be it widgets or workers are smart enought to protect their position when the contract ends and it's time to renew or cancel, and it's usually a lot harder to cancel than to re-negociate. Why would labour contracts be much different?

In what way are union contracts not part of ordinary market economics? If you insist on being on the worst terms possible with your client/supplier you'll have a hell of a time in all your dealings. If you understand that your arrangement benefits you both, you'll see your best interests are served by working together. Pretty basic stuff I'da thought. Labour-management relations aren't much different. Except for the silly rhetoric.
My post was not meant to past judgment on whether unions are positive or negative. I have worked in different environments where either argument could be made and I don’t think there is a universal answer to this question (although in the province I’m in, I think that in many ways the balance has shifted to far towards unions). I agree with you regarding hockey players versus Walmart workers (or bus drivers and CUPE members to keep things on topic). However, arguments that markets produce efficient results (e.g. where benefits to trade have been exhausted) usually involve the assumption of many buyers and sellers who are price takers. Situations such as you describe involve bargaining which generally do not produce the same efficient results as markets. For this reason anti competition laws usually outlaw suppliers from combining in cartels. In fact anti competition laws were originally used against unions until they were exempted from them. Thus, I don’t understand why you argue that unions represent functioning markets but not the same situation in other markets (unless you are arguing that anti competition laws are wrong, in which case I agree that you are being consistent). It seems to me that regardless of whether unions are good or bad, they are modifications (at the very least) to the workings of labour markets. If you disagree with me that's fine. I'm just trying to understand your position.

[cyrus]

Wow, has the media got you snowed. The TTC budget goes up every year b/c gov't had ignored maintenance for decades, resulting in sky-rocketing costs of maintaining infrastructure. Labour costs are a drop in the bucket (of the last $0.25 increase on TTC fares, the current union proposals would amount to $0.02 of that total).

The TTC is a well-paying job. If you're jealous of that fact, then go apply for a position; they're hiring all the time. Of course, you wouldn't want to be a bus driver now would you? Having to deal with all those griping commuters, limited future job prospects, working weekends and odd-shifts. No, you wouldn't want to work it but you have no problem begrudging TTC workers the compensation they are paid to do the job few other people want...
Hmmm . . . . It seems you are the one with out a clue and a lot of preconceived notions,
first of all salaries have always been the major cost of running any kind of organization, in private sector any thing in the range of 40 to 60% and much higher in the Public sector, second of all maintenance is an operational issue thus it is TTC’s job to look after it not the government, just line TTC drivers who drive the buses not the government!
When the increase in total salaries exceed the salary projection/allocation in the budget it always gets compensated by cutting into other expenses then it may have to go red (into deficit), i.e., purchase of new buses, maintenance . . . . etc gets sacrificed.
As for driving a bus for TTC being a good paying job, hell it is and I wonder why would that be the case when you don't even need even a high scool diploma for it never mind a collage education! ummmm it is a hard work! right . . . let me think. . . . Gee let’s join a union!!! ( did you know to become a TTC driver, one needs to be on the waiting list for almost 5 year!)
Now, those who know the history of unions (19Th century, Coal miners, UK etc. . . . lalalala) would appreciate their usefulness but extortion is not one of them!

[oldjones]

My post was not meant to past judgment on whether unions are positive or negative. I have worked in different environments where either argument could be made and I don’t think there is a universal answer to this question (although in the province I’m in, I think that in many ways the balance has shifted to far towards unions). I agree with you regarding hockey players versus Walmart workers (or bus drivers and CUPE members to keep things on topic). However, arguments that markets produce efficient results (e.g. where benefits to trade have been exhausted) usually involve the assumption of many buyers and sellers who are price takers. Situations such as you describe involve bargaining which generally do not produce the same efficient results as markets. For this reason anti competition laws usually outlaw suppliers from combining in cartels. In fact anti competition laws were originally used against unions until they were exempted from them. Thus, I don’t understand why you argue that unions represent functioning markets but not the same situation in other markets (unless you are arguing that anti competition laws are wrong, in which case I agree that you are being consistent). It seems to me that regardless of whether unions are good or bad, they are modifications (at the very least) to the workings of labour markets. If you disagree with me that's fine. I'm just trying to understand your position. I think what you are saying is that unions have a monopoly of some sort, so the bargaining isn't the same as in an open market. One might as well say the employer has a monopoly on members' jobs. Neither is really true. After fulfilling whatever obligations they may still have to each other due to their expiring contract, and remaining within the law, either side's free to find someone else to play with. As free as any other market.

There are lots of sectors with more than one union representing/supplying the desired labour, and there's no special impediment to founding yet another. Some managements have been known to encourage such sweetheart setups. Film and TV technicians used to have their pick of three unions, a lovely situation for producers, until the major American union bulldozed the upstart Canadian organization and hoovered up its members. But producers can and do still whipsaw NABET against IATSE.

The only way I'd buy the position that a union is a "modification of a normal labour market" would be if you could show me it's abnormal for people to get together in their common interest. I think that's the most normal thing in the world. Still, if that's the deal you want: You give up the legal fiction that a corporation (a group of individuals sharing ownership of an enterprise, but without responsibility for its operation) exists as a person does, and make every shareholder liable and responsible, and I'll give up unions. But if the workers must each negociate and sign individually, obviously so must those owners.

[someone]

I think what you are saying is that unions have a monopoly of some sort, so the bargaining isn't the same as in an open market. One might as well say the employer has a monopoly on members' jobs.
In some situation like a small mining town that would be true but in Toronto, except for specialized occupations, it would not be true.

Neither is really true. After fulfilling whatever obligations they may still have to each other due to their expiring contract, and remaining within the law, either side's free to find someone else to play with. As free as any other market.
Not really, once a union is certified, it is the official representatives of those in the bargaining unit. Even when replacement workers are hired, I believe the employer is still supposed to make “good faith” attempts to come to an agreement with the union. Moreover, in some provinces, replacement workers are not an option (unless, the have changed the law, Quebec would be an example)


There are lots of sectors with more than one union representing/supplying the desired labour, and there's no special impediment to founding yet another. Some managements have been known to encourage such sweetheart setups. Film and TV technicians used to have their pick of three unions, a lovely situation for producers, until the major American union bulldozed the upstart Canadian organization and hoovered up its members. But producers can and do still whipsaw NABET against IATSE.
True, I was not thinking in terms of craft unions.


The only way I'd buy the position that a union is a "modification of a normal labour market" would be if you could show me it's abnormal for people to get together in their common interest.
Adam Smith would agree. The fact that it is normal is why we have a Competition Act to try to prevent such behavior in most markets. In the case of union, the Rand formula actually has the opposite effect and encourages such behaviour.
Anyway, I think I see where your coming from which was all I was interested in. Thanks.

[oldjones]

…edit…Adam Smith would agree [that joining together in the common interest is normal]. The fact that it is normal is why we have a Competition Act to try to prevent such behavior in most markets. In the case of union, the Rand formula actually has the opposite effect and encourages such behaviour.
Anyway, I think I see where your coming from which was all I was interested in. Thanks. Perhaps I could persuade you to amplify your last point. I just can't make the leap to Adam Smith, who I always thought abhorred state intervention in the marketplace. Surely it's not the joining, but the monopoly that may result, that distorts the market. And it seems we agree unions are not monolpolies.

My understanding of Rand is that it requires those benefiting from/covered by a union-negociated collective agreement to pay union dues to finance that negociation irrespective of whether they want membership in the union. As a quid pro quo I believe the 'closed shop' is not legal—you can make her pay, you can't make her join. Middle ground I'd have thought and no members-only monopoly.

Employers have always treated workers as a collective—"the wage for weavers is tuppence a day take it or leave it"—rather than bargaining one on one. One-on-one would be that free market, would it not? So is a refusal to bargain individually restraint of trade?

Surely the employer's insistance on dealing on a group basis entitles the workers to form their own group to negociate with them. I just don't see the applicability of anti-trust laws at all, and I had thought that they'd failed in court when applied to unions.

[someone]

Perhaps I could persuade you to amplify your last point. I just can't make the leap to Adam Smith, who I always thought abhorred state intervention in the marketplace. .
No problem. The most common quote that Smith did not think it was "abnormal for people to get together in their common interest" is:

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for
merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a
conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise
prices.”

Although he did not think government regulation would be effective in preventing this, he nonetheless did not think government regulation should encourage it:

“But though the law cannot hinder people of
the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do
nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them
necessary."

For more details see http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/smith/wealth/



Surely it's not the joining, but the monopoly that may result, that distorts the market. And it seems we agree unions are not monolpolies. .
No, we don’t agree on that. My comment was with regard to your claim that it could also be said that employers have monopoly power. Unions would not have bargaining power if they did not have some monopoly power.


My understanding of Rand is that it requires those benefiting from/covered by a union-negociated collective agreement to pay union dues to finance that negociation irrespective of whether they want membership in the union. As a quid pro quo I believe the 'closed shop' is not legal—you can make her pay, you can't make her join. Middle ground I'd have thought and no members-only monopoly.

Employers have always treated workers as a collective—"the wage for weavers is tuppence a day take it or leave it"—rather than bargaining one on one. One-on-one would be that free market, would it not? So is a refusal to bargain individually restraint of trade?

Surely the employer's insistance on dealing on a group basis entitles the workers to form their own group to negociate with them. I just don't see the applicability of anti-trust laws at all, and I had thought that they'd failed in court when applied to unions.

That depends on the work involved. In my line of work, even when there is a union, there is a lot of individual negotiation about where on the pay scale you are as factors such as "market differential" are taken into account (e.g. usually economics professors get some market differentials automatically but English professors have a tougher time unless they have exceptional publication records).

Without a union, employers are forced to raise (and when feasible) lower wage rates in response to market conditions. Indeed for occupations like the CUPE workers in Toronto, the employer would likely be what are called “price takers” (I should say that I have not lived in Toronto for a few years so I have not been following the details). Given that many other employers higher the same type of workers, both employers and workers would likely have to take the market wage as given, if it where not for unions in.

As far as anti trust laws, I believe that orginally courts upheld them until they were changed. However, I'm too lazy to find a link supporting this.

[Keebler Elf]

first of all salaries have always been the major cost of running any kind of organization, in private sector any thing in the range of 40 to 60% and much higher in the Public sector, second of all maintenance is an operational issue thus it is TTC’s job to look after it not the government, just line TTC drivers who drive the buses not the government!

Buddy, you really, really, really don't know what you're talking about. Labour costs are nowhere near 40-60% of total costs. Maybe in the NHL, but that's about it.

Labour costs are higher in the public sector than the private b/c the public sector tends to pay more and has a greater ratio of "knowledge" work vs. capital infrastructure than most private firms.

Infrastucture costs are one of the largest, if not the largest, costs for the TTC. So when gov't chronically underfunds for decades, there's not a whole heck of a lot the TTC can do about it.

To be honest, I'm still flabbergasted that you think labour costs are 40-60% of total labour costs. You are obviously well out of your league in this discussion, so I'll leave you to your, um, "thoughts"...

[langeweile]

Unions in general are necessary to create a balance to those few "bad companies".
Good companies usully don't have union problems.It is in the interest of any good employer to have a safe and healthy working enviroment. It pays of in the long run.

Unfortunately like there is good and bad companies, there are good and bad unions.

[oldjones]

…edit…No, we don’t agree on that. My comment was with regard to your claim that it could also be said that employers have monopoly power. Unions would not have bargaining power if they did not have some monopoly power.…edit… Of course, nor would employers. The closer to monopoly the greater the power—what other work is there in the company town? The unions in more open markets like TO's, like any other alert enterprise, are aware their position is always uncertain. Employees do abandon unions they didn't like—it's happened several times in the news media and at the CBC (CUPE lost the jurisdiction there)—precisely because there is no monopoly. Not much different from the company managers tracking prices and costs, and ocassionaly getting it wrong.

Once a contract is in place—like any contract to be the exclusive supplier of a product or service—then there is a monopoly, but it's voluntary and only for the life and terms of the contract.

In my line of work, the union contracts typically allow any member to bargain for better pay (but just imagine the chaos if we all bargained for individual conditions of work) than the minimums in the contract. That contract was negociated with my union by the Producer's Association, who announced one year they would no longer bargain as individual enterprises. And sure enough, there were no individual producers willing to talk.

Their version of the rate clause forbids us from giving a lower rate to any other producers, though we're free to charge more. They have the jobs, we have the skills, the law lets anyone be a producer or technician, and the contract terms bind only those who have agreed to them. Is there a monopoly here? I just don't see it, here, nor with the TTC and ATWU.

BTW CUPE keeps being mentioned as if it was involved w/ the TTC, not so. It's CUPE who are currently working to rule at the school board. I've always loved the irony of strictly following the employers' rules as a strategy. If management actually made useful, productive rules then work to rule would make a place function better than ever wouldn't it?

And on the "restraint of trade" laws banning union membership: I found this site (http://www.globalseek.net/CoNTiNeNTs/NAMeRiCa/CaNaDa/HoLiDaYs/labour.html) which says those laws, which made union membership a criminal conspiracy in restraint of trade, were repealed in 1872. A federal law explicitly permitting collective bargaining was passed under Mackenzie King in 1907. In the US the Sherman Anti-Trust law was used against the Pullman strikers in 1894 and according to this timeline (http://www.access.wvu.edu/class/wvhistory/html/timelines/unit10-11.htm), it wasn't until 1931 that unions were given legal standing.

[cyrus]

Buddy, you really, really, really don't know what you're talking about. Labour costs are nowhere near 40-60% of total costs. Maybe in the NHL, but that's about it.

Labour costs are higher in the public sector than the private b/c the public sector tends to pay more and has a greater ratio of "knowledge" work vs. capital infrastructure than most private firms.

Infrastucture costs are one of the largest, if not the largest, costs for the TTC. So when gov't chronically underfunds for decades, there's not a whole heck of a lot the TTC can do about it.

To be honest, I'm still flabbergasted that you think labour costs are 40-60% of total labour costs. You are obviously well out of your league in this discussion, so I'll leave you to your, um, "thoughts"...

Hmmm . . .Infrastructure is financed separately all together hint it is not considered expense, however maintenance & salaries are so do not mix them up.
Investment in infrastructure is done though capital planning directly that in turn tied to cash flow etc. In any case TTC has not had any major expansion anyway for a long time, with the exception of the Sheppard line so the notion that it is the largest cost is way off etc . . . . Now I am simplifying things to make a point !
On a general note, you know what gets me the most,sometimes people intent to bluntly argue about things they don't know much about and worse don't bother to do a bit of research or at least attempt to learn from others!
Hint, financial statements of most publicly owned organizations including the public sector are available to any interested party, take a look and see what expenses are consider major or otherwise!