mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton) (11/15/89)
>I don't think this is true. Often strikes are the result of the management >proposing CHANGES which are bad for the workers. For example, in the Toronto >TTC strike one of the biggest issues was that of the management INTRODUCING >part-time workers. The management wanted to change the existing situation, and >the union wanted it to say the same. This was one of the big strike issues, >and without it I don't think the workers would have gone on strike. The TTC union wanted to ride the gravy train off our tax dollars and fares. In an operation which has obvious need of labour at 2 distinct periods of the day, there is no choice for management but to pay overtime or hire part time. It would be stupid to make-work in the off-rush-hour period. The overtime that WAS worked is incredibly expensive for US (notice the US (you and me) - not some "money grubbing, big corporation only out for its own good..."), and not only that, the management was having terrible problems even getting people to work the overtime. Why not? They have the opportunity to hold the city for ransom. To come to work 8 hours a day, and half of them would only have to work for 2 or 3. Did the union try to come up with a solution? 4 day, 10 hr work weeks? Having part time workers in the union? Of course not, why try to be realistic when you HAVE THE POWER? I'm waiting for the day when a union card becomes more important than a Master's degree for employment (they've probably already passed undergraduate and college degrees). And people wonder why our taxes continue to rise... Why is it that the hardest working people never seem to be on strike? The custodians here at Waterloo are a perfect example of that, and I'd be first in line to give them a pay raise (if I did have anything to do with it). The same unions (TTC, Post Office) are constantly walking out, while most of the people doing all the work end up getting shafted by anti-union feelings and poverty wages. Mike. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hutton University of Waterloo, Computer Science. mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu
riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) (11/19/89)
In article <18175@watdragon.waterloo.edu> mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton) writes: >Why is it that the hardest working people never seem to be on strike? >The custodians here at Waterloo are a perfect example of that, and I'd >be first in line to give them a pay raise (if I did have anything to >do with it). The same unions (TTC, Post Office) are constantly walking >out, while most of the people doing all the work end up getting >shafted by anti-union feelings and poverty wages. > This brings up a point which one never sees discussed: that the concept of unionism introduces a strong bias into the economic system, favouring those like transportation workers and garbage collectors over others like custodians at universities (not to mention professors!), for the simple reason that a strike by the first mentioned groups creates almost immediate havoc in large population areas. We will not have to wait too many more years before such workers will be among the best paid people in society.
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/20/89)
In article <2566C3EA.16178@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) writes: >population areas. We will not have to wait too many more years before such >workers will be among the best paid people in society. Nonsense! In not too long, we'll have "equal pay for comparable work" laws, and the wage police will roll back their wages. :-) After all, a subway ticket collector does comparable work to a secretary, right? -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
landolt@yunexus.UUCP (Paul Landolt) (11/20/89)
In article <50024@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <2566C3EA.16178@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) writes: >>We will not have to wait too many more years before such >>workers will be among the best paid people in society. > >Nonsense! In not too long, we'll have "equal pay for comparable work" >laws, and the wage police will roll back their wages. :-) > >After all, a subway ticket collector does comparable work to a secretary, >right? >-- >Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Let me ask you a question Brad. If being a Secretary and being a collector both pay 19Kpa (example), which job would you rather take? Me, well, I'll take the secretary. However, if being a collector meant getting paid, say 25K pa, then I would take the collector. In a union situation, what a person gets paid is not nessesarily what the person is worth but what the job is worth. The employer must make it worth the person's while to take a job. A smelly, boring, monotonous job tends to be made more attractive by a high wage. -- J. Paul Landolt | The F-37 Stealth Cookie: Computing Services | Today's Dream or Tomorrow's Nightmare? York University - Toronto, Canadia | -------------------------------------- InterNet: landolt@nexus.YorkU.CA | My opinions. All mine. So sue me.
yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) (11/21/89)
In article <5268@yunexus.UUCP> landolt@yunexus.UUCP (Paul Landolt) writes: > >In a union situation, what a person gets paid is not nessesarily what the >person is worth but what the job is worth. The employer must make it >worth the person's while to take a job. A smelly, boring, monotonous >job tends to be made more attractive by a high wage. > This is an unnecessary waste of money; just find a smelly, boring, monotonous person to do the job :-). A person _should_ get paid what a person is worth. Davin Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, I am a student, so I have no employer for you to sue. Furthermore, as an individual I am entitled to my opinion, and under the constitutions of both the U.S. and Canada, I am also entitled to express them. Therefore, if you have any notion of suing me, I have but two words for you, "Eat Me!"