Author
|
Topic: race to the top
|
CourtneyGQuinn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5068
|
posted 12 October 2005 09:51 AM
i'm getting sick of labour disputes....nurses in NB were set to go on strike a few months ago...teachers in BC are on strike....cops in TO are threatening strike...it seems that organized labour is factioned and looking out for their own greed....people getting paid with public money have no qualms interupting services ...doesn't big labour know that their "race to the top" is everyone elses "race to the bottom"?....perhaps big labour are hypocrites...they say they want to help the poor...but do they really want to help poor people in Canada, India, China or elsewhere in the world?....big labour wants protectionist barriers to keep THEIR standard of living high...dammed with the rest of us...we can pay higher taxes or pay higher prices on goods so they benefit...it doesn't matter to them that non unionized workforces are barely getting by...i mean....what do non unionized, working parents in BC think about the teachers union?....does the BC teachers union even care?....have they talked to parents or polled them to find out if they think a strike if warrented? if i was the BC gov i'd immediately tell the teachers union that the BC gov will bring in 1000's of teachers from India and China to teach children if they aren't interested nurse and doctors unions should be told that there's many qualified people in Cuba willing and able to do their job if they're not interested cops in TO should be told that they can easily be replaced by a few thousand digicams (heck, the 60 thousand plus Canadian Forces has 55 000 soilders not doing much...they could quickly and easily be tasked with policing if need be...i mean really...all our CF guys with guns should be doing something other then endless training, marching, shining of boots and pushing of papers) public unionized garbage collectors should be told there's thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis who would jump at the chance of picking up roadside garbage in Canada rather then worrying about roadside bombs in their homelands telus employees should be told there's tens of thousands of intelligent, english speaking Filipinos who could easy be tasked with doing their job if they feel their not getting paid enough cbc employees should be told there's many South Koreans working for Ohmynews that could reform that institution if they're not up to the task perhaps big labor should consolidate or evaporate
From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202
|
posted 12 October 2005 10:03 AM
Wow.1. Think about what you just said. Ask yourself, "Are all of these workers interchangeable?" "Are costs of living the same everywhere in the world?" Think about the implications of the answers of these questions. 2. I'm not certain virulently anti-union discourse is within the mandate of the Labour and Consumption forum, but that's just my opinion as an ordinary babbler. 3. Throwing around labels like, "big labor" [sic] doesn't help your argument. You're talking about several different unions, with different leaderships, covering totally different professions. Conflating them all just brings down your discourse to the level of stereotype. It adds nothing. edited for a silly mistake [ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: kurichina ]
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anarchonostic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4133
|
posted 12 October 2005 11:01 AM
Courtney, I don't know about other disputes, but in the TELUS/TWU one, the main issues aren't wages, but job security.We're really not asking for extreme wage increases. Both the union and the company agree we should see increases in flow with the North American average. Our concern is prevented the company from doing an end-around by eliminating contacting out clauses from our agreement. We're trying to stop TELUS from saving money by eliminating our positions and filling them in the Phillipines. Unless of course you're suggesting we compete on wages with Asia. But I don't think that's what your suggesting.
From: Vancouver | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CourtneyGQuinn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5068
|
posted 12 October 2005 11:27 AM
citizen of winnipeg---i'm still wondering about the potential of Mr.Katz....and i somewhat agree with the "flip flop" idea he raised....don't get me wrong...i'm as poor as they get...but i often wonder about a possible entrenched entitlement philosphy that might be evident with unions...the left/labour generally want to help the poor here in Canada and throughout the world...but it seems "they" don't want to accept competition or new, productive solutions..i absoulutley hate the status quo and want to see real changes from the top and bottom classes Anarchonostic--- i don't believe in job security...i used to work for ATT Wireless when i lived in Cornwall, Ont...(actually, it was a sub-company of ATT Wireless....Startek...(seems sub companies get bigger slices of corporate welfare and gov subsidies if structured just right..))...anyway....i worked in both pre paid (pay-as-you-go) and post paid (monthly contracts) devisions.....4 years ago CSR agents actually took phone calls to "top-off" peoples prepaid accounts....nowadays its all automated...there's no need for people....why should a company promise job security if it can easily be automated/robotised?....i fear that unions may be halting progression by hindering productivity....i mean...what if telus finds a way to automate alot of what they do?....then what of all the job-secured employees?....should subscribers have to pay a premium to have employees push useless paper around and waste time?...either every job should be secure or no jobs should be secure....for "big labour" to fight for job security for only their workers just seems wrong
From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327
|
posted 12 October 2005 01:05 PM
Courtney, you simply don't know what you're talking about here.The job of labour unions is to stand up for the interests of their workers, not to find a "reasonable" compromise. Workers don't go on strike just to cause disruptions. They go on strike because they feel that the company they work for is not negotiating with them fairly and they see no other alternative. Remember that workers have to vote to approve the strike, and in a labour dispute it's the workers who suffer the most because of lost pay, uncertainty, etc. It's interesting that you mention labour unions feeling a position of entitlement and not caring about low-income people in Canada or about workers around the world. Labour councils are heavliy involved in lobbying for such things as increases to minimum wage, which benefit lower-pay workers and something which most union members will not benefit from. In addition, labour unions around the world are active in lobbying for high labour standards so that there is no competitive advantage for a company to locate somewhere it doesn't have to pay workers well. As for saving money by reducing staff and hiring robots? For one thing, robots have energy requirements that must be paid for, as opposed to workers who can get their energy by a little exercise most of us call eating. In addition, any savings that result from such things as automation and workforce reduction end up saving money for the company, not the consumer.
From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 12 October 2005 02:41 PM
quote: Originally posted by CourtneyGQuinn: ?....big labour wants protectionist barriers to keep THEIR standard of living high...dammed with the rest of us...we can pay higher taxes or pay higher prices on goods so they benefit...it doesn't matter to them that non unionized workforces are barely getting by...i mean....what do non unionized, working parents in BC think about the teachers union?....does the BC teachers union even care?....have they talked to parents or polled them to find out if they think a strike if warrented? ...(and wrapping up this beef against unions) perhaps big labor should consolidate or evaporate
Fact#1. The USA and Canada have the lowest rate of unionized workforce among richest nations #2. The USA and Canada have the largest percentage of its workers in low paid employment compared to other rich nations #3 The USA and Canada own the highest child poverty rates among rich nations There was a story a few years ago about a new community that popped-up in the Brazilian Amazon region. They were mining gold and knocking down trees for big business interests. And, overnight, prices for just about everything local workers could ever want and need, skyrocketed upward. The interesting part was that there wasn't a union in sight and working conditions were deplorable. The problem with "big business" interests and workers interests around Latin America, and around the world in general, is that each of them promises to improve the lives of millions of people by providing work. And they propose to do it without being pushed and prodded by unions fighting for worker's rights and living wages. They point out that as time goes by, big business provides jobs and prosperity is spread around by some magic of free market capitalism. But none of them wants to step up to the plate and offer living wages or decent working conditions for the very workers they depend on to make corporate fortunes even possible. When North American workers have solidarity, wages will begin to reflect the cost of living. Until then, bend over and take the frozen boot of big business like a man, and leave "big unions" out of it. Place the blame where squarely on the shoulders of where it belongs - on 75 years of liberal and 25 of conservative party autocracy in Canada. That's not democracy.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662
|
posted 14 October 2005 04:52 AM
quote: big labour wants protectionist barriers to keep THEIR standard of living high...dammed with the rest of us...we can pay higher taxes or pay higher prices on goods so they benefit...it doesn't matter to them that non unionized workforces are barely getting by
The problem is not unions per say, but rather ceratin segments of the labour bureaucracy. Here I am referring primarily to private sector business union types, the more conservative public sector union leaders, and labour federation leaders like Jim Sincaliar of the BC Fed of Labour, and Ken Giorgetti of the Canadian Labour Congress. This segment of the labour bureaucracy, is not interested in helping the genuinely disadvantaged in society; nor are they interrested in increasing overall union levels. This segment of the labour bureaucracy is primarily concerned that at the end of the day they still have their cushy jobs. These union leaders may talk the talk when necessary, but when push comes to shove and it's one day away from a general strike, people like Jim Sinclair and Ken Giorgetti do everything in their power to try and kill it. The conservative labour bureaucracy sells out not only unionized workers, but it also sells out non-unionized workers when it refuses to launch new unionization drives. In the face of capitalistsd attacks on working and living standards, workers need unions more than ever. Labour leaders who shy away from unionzation drives are part of the problem. And when public sector unions like HEU and the BCTF go on strike, the support of labour bureaucrats like Jim Sinclair is not really there. Sure, he initially talks a good line, but when the rubber hits the road one day before a general strike, Jim Sinclair is on the other side of the fence. Strikes are an absolute necessity in our increasingly neo-liberalized world. And with each successive round of attacks on the working class, fewer and fewer options are available to workers besides the General strike if they want to affect real change. Unfortunately, the Labour bureaucracy stand in the way of a general strike. Replace the labour bureaucracy with leaders who actually care about the coolective fate of the working class; who actively seek to increase unionization rates; who seek to educate the working class not to take no for an answer. Lets build a labour movement that fights neo-liberalism and wins.
From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anarchonostic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4133
|
posted 14 October 2005 06:09 AM
quote: Originally posted by CourtneyGQuinn:
police bending/breaking the rules in Canada's largest city doesn't happen all the time.... poor, homeless people should immediately occupy empty municipal, provincial and federal buildings....i'd love to see government leaders on all levels react and try to do something about such a scenario....govs to cops: "do something...get them out of our buildings"....cops to govs:"first off, do something about police labour concerns...secondly, those buildings aren't yours...they're the publics..the peoples...if you won't build them affordable homes....fuck it...we're letting them stay in the buildings until you give a shit about them and us..."
Good idea, Courtney. I'd be all for it (well, from out here on the West Coast, anyways). You should send a copy of your post to [email protected] Solidarity works best when it's used as a wide net, is my belief. But taken with your earlier posts, are you sure you're not trying to bring about some Mad Max/Blade Runner dystopia, with cutthroat wage warfare, entirely robotic corporations, and rampant revolution? With all seriousness, though: do you foresee a problem with the 'inevitable', looking a generation into the future? Can Canadian workers adapt, or will unemployment skyrocket? Can Canadian workers adapt enough for corporations hungry for constant growth and ever higher share prices? I know what TELUS can automate now, and what they can't. They have automated, for now, about all they can without impacting customer service. [ 14 October 2005: Message edited by: Anarchonostic ]
From: Vancouver | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|