Categories: Polls

How has the recession affected your view of workers’ strikes?

…

by macleans.ca on Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:36pm - 23 Comments

Tags: Garbage Strike, lcbo strike, ontario, poll, Strike, Toronto

avens

Go on strike for *What?* More sick days, more breaks, less work, more money, free uniforms, etc etc. They do it because they can. Love to see a decree *go back to work or be fired* If you are not happy in this job, then quit and find one you ARE happy with. *Good Luck* with that.
http://intensedebate.com/people/croghan27 croghan27

I has been my experience that workers strike BECAUSE the like their job/work and are trying to improve it. This is often in the face of small minded managers who's loyality is given to some mythical 'bottom line' tempered by the fear of losing any 'power' they have. It is they that care not a fig for the job, not the workers.

"Go back to work or be fired' is not a solution – it is a cowardly avoidance of conditions.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

What are you talking about?

Theoretically, workers should strike because they feel they are underpaid for their work.

Of course, there is a risk involved with this (as per usual in life, no risk: no reward). If the employer is able to replace the workers at the same, or even a lower, cost, the strikers took the wrong gamble and are out of work.

But, city employees are not subject to the regular rules of the game. They cannot be fired or replaced. The worst case scenario for them would be being legislated back to work without getting their additional demands met, but still receiving their annual raises. In short, there is no way in which they can lose.

Now, I see that this poll is generally focussed and not specifically about the garbage worker strike in Toronto at present. However, my comment is about the garbage workers strike.

These people are paid way above what they would be in a just society and David Miller needs to slip the next offer across the table to them, and it should specify their wages being halved.

If anyone should be striking, it is the taxpayers of Toronto. Why are overpaying for our services? If our municipal council really represented us, it would withhold the wages of these workers, give the savings back to the taxpayers, and let them find solutions for their garbage disposal that have prices based on supply and demand, not just a gang of disgusting unskilled morons angrily shouting their demands be supplied.

avens

Well said, they should be glad to have the job – even at half the pay.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Even better, if they are not happy with the pay that they are receiving for their work and think that they are worth more, then they should strike. But the city must be allowed to attempt to replace them with cheaper workers.

If the city can find people who can do the same job as the strikers for less pay (which they can), then the strikers will be forced to find other work commensurate with their skill level(s)… are any farmers hiring scarecrows?

http://intensedebate.com/people/croghan27 croghan27

"These people are paid way above what they would be in a just society " Eh? as in HUH?

In a just society they would not have to walk out to get some justice and be taken seriously in the negotiations. Maybe you are correct about Mr. Miller – but the workers negotiated the benefits in their contract, foregoing some things and trading off others .. those contracts were signed by the representives of the City: both sides satisfied with what was worked out – a legal contract between the union and its' employer.

Perhaps you should wander over to Osgood Hall and seek a discussion of what contractual law entails.

If you are disatisfied, you should have been for some years now. Their compensation has been worked out over a multitude of years, contracts and city administrations. Were they all wrong?

Rather than 'they are lucky to have a job' – the City is lucky to have them.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

In a just society, the City would not contract workers on the citizens behalf – that is, people should be able to spend their own money.

How can you possibly say that "the City is lucky to have them"? Unskilled jobs like the ones we are discussing could be filled by many other people, people who would be very happy to have the job, even at much less the pay. Are such people "lucky to have them"?
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

In a just society, the City would not contract workers on the citizens' behalf – that is, people should be able to spend their own money.

How can you possibly say that "the City is lucky to have them"? Unskilled jobs like the ones we are discussing could be filled by many other people, people who would be very happy to have the job, even at much less the pay. Are such people "lucky to have them"?

Idontthinkso

No doubt croghan is a garbage worker or is employed in a unionized job with his pro-overpaid, underworked, I want more attitude! The fact that compensation has been "worked out over a multitude of years" is precisely the issue. Who goes back to their employer every couple of years and asks for more money, more vacation, job security, etc., etc. The automotive industry is just one prime example of how effective unions are at ensuring an equilibrium is achieved between business profitability and employee demands "over a multitude of years".

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

And suggesting that the City is "lucky" to have people willing to perform jobs for it for way much more pay than they are worth is like suggesting that I am lucky to have a wife who is willing to take half my house.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

"Who goes back to their employer every couple of years and asks for more money, more vacation, job security, etc., etc.?"

The answer: Anyone who can.

The next question: Who can?

The next answer: Anyone without competition – that is, anyone with a government enforced monopoly, just ask your teacher. ; )
http://intensedebate.com/people/croghan27 croghan27

Obviously you are as good a prognosticating as you are at economics – go back to your vodoo school and do some more home work. Bet ya thnk that 'trickle down works' too.

Do you really think that workers should be satisfied with what they may be given rather than take control of their lives? Do you really believe that no one (other than yourself, obviously) deserves sufficient compensation for their work to live an acceptable middle class life in N. America? Do you really believe that people should not band together to help each other?

As for the auto industry – its' decline had (has) more to do with poor, greedy and short sighted management than any labour problems .. but then you probably own a 4-wheel-drive suburban monster and think you richly deserve, so would never understand what good management does. Perhaps you believe that the current economic downturn was caused by those pesky union people demanding too much

I do presently belong to a union, and have for two years …. prior to that I ran a contracting firm. The last time I was a union member before that was 1978.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Part 2

"Do you really believe that no one (other than yourself, obviously) deserves sufficient compensation for their work to live an acceptable middle class life in N. America?"

I think myself and everyone else deserve(s) the same thing, to get the best remuneration for our services possible in a free and unfettered (non government monopolised) society.

"Sufficient" and "acceptable" are subjective terms. I can't agree that all workers deserve a "sufficent" and "acceptable" income, at whatever you deem to be "sufficient" and "acceptable". I can address the egregious fallacy that everyone should be paid enough to, at least, be middle class. This is, of course, impossible, how can you be a middle class with no class below you? It is like saying that every child deserves an above average education.

Furthermore, I will offer that it would resemble a very twisted and contorted circus freak, the society that puts its least skilled members in the middle class.

However, the most important problem with your, rather ill-considered, paragraph is the word "deserves". Now, this could get tediously philosophic, but I ask you, at what point is anything determined to be deserved? I suggest that something is deserved when it is negotiated in a voluntary contract. Taxation, the money with which governments negotiate, is not voluntarily obtained.

Free markets of voluntary trading are the only way to determine what is "deserved". I ask you, is the current union demands what the workers "deserve", or, when the next contract negotiation comes, will they "deserve" more? Why?

"Do you really believe that people should not band together to help each other?"

Which people? And for what purpose? The purpose of "banding together" is to use your size and strength to intimidate. This is an act of coercion, and I do not approve of it. What do you think a "bandit" is?

The KKK was a union, but so were the Civil Rights marchers. But the Civil Rights marchers were not demanding appropriation of other people's money to them.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Part 3

Next, I do not own an automobile, but I can tell you that "you probably own a 4-wheel-drive suburban monster and think you richly deserve, so would never understand what good management does" is a non-sequitur. Do you really think that one's comprehension of management is a function of his or her vehicle?

There is no doubt that the CAW is not the only one to blame for the present state of North American car manufacturing, but I hope you are not saying that they are in no way culpable.

The economic downturn was caused by a fantasy system of economics, those pesky union people (public unions especially) contributed slightly. However, I think that the reason that the economic system was able to get so bent out of shape without many people seeing a problem, is because too many people harbour too many ludicrous economic beliefs, not dissimilar to the ones you have demonstrated here. To put is simply, too many people demanded too much and thought that they "deserved" it.

Finally, your beliefs are objectionable whether or not you belong to a union. In fact, many of the striking union members do not want to be on strike. It is a good example of how the coercive powers of public unions are not just over governments, but over their own members. How's that fair representation?

Jane

It's not about "I don't have it, so you shouldn't", it's about "If you get it (or keep it), so may I".
Get your heads out of the sand for one minute and take a good look at yourself. How can we possibly more forward to a better life for ourselves and others if we don't support each other!!
It's the upper management who get all the 'fat', and they keep wanting to take away from the little guys. They [city workers] don't make a huge amount of money; less then those who were in the auto industry. Why be jealous when you can make a positive difference?! Support your city workers!!
http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Strikes are rarely about wages. Just reported that way because it's easier.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

This Toronto strike is (reportedly) about the workers' right to bank 18 sick days a year and cash them out upon retirement. How is someone like me, a contract worker and city taxpayer, supposed to feel sympathy for that? I don't even qualify for EI. Seems to me it's a mistake to talk about "workers" as though minimum-wage workers at McDonald's (who should, in my opinion, be encouraged to unionise) have something in common with workers making huge salaries with near-total job security and huge benefits. You want to talk class struggle? Line up unionised auto workers next to minimum-wage part-time workers (or better yet starvation-wage fruit-pickers) and tell me who the oppressors are.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Quite right, Jack.

The strike is often framed as poor, miserable workers versus big, powerful government. But the City unions are much more akin in strength and power to the big, bad corporations that labour sympathisers usually despise.

If anybody should be calling a strike, it is we the taxpayers. We should be refusing to have our taxes so prodigally disposed of.

I think all citizens of Toronto should contact their Councillors and demand a refund for every week their garbage collection is cancelled.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

You are splitting hairs over a distinction without a difference. Strikes are about money.

Now, there is nothing wrong with money. What there is something wrong with is when you want to reserve the right to strike at the same time as being publicly funded, and thus not subject to market forces. If you want to be able to use negotiating tactics, such as strikes, to increase your income, then your employer (the City) must also be permitted to use tactics in an effort to reduce its expenses – like hire less expensive private companies.

http://intensedebate.com/people/croghan27 croghan27

Strikes are about power …. money maybe a fall out of that, but most definitely about control and power.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Power is exercised over someone or something.

So, strikes are about power…

Power over what? Or whom?