LCBO strike

[SteelbackGuy]

Voting in favor of a strike is a simple bargaining tactic. You can vote yes, but still not actually want to go out.

I am aware of that - my point is that the union encourages it's use as a tactic in order to say publicly "our members want a strike" when, in your own words, they don't.

That is absolutely 100% correct and I am not sure what else you want me to say. It seems very simplistic to me, but perhaps I am missing something. I voted in favor of the strike, even though I didn't want one. Usually a strike requires a second vote, so in this case, I felt comfortable voting yes the first time. Second time around, well I am not sure how I would have voted. Thankfully it didn't come down to that.

[Kel Varnsen]

I am amazed at the union bashing going on in this forum. Let's remember that private sector and/or non union employees enjoy many rights and freedoms on the coat tails of unionized employees.
Our society as a whole benefits from a 5 day work week (some only working 37.5 hours a week), benefits for most full time employees, and their families as well as paid vacations.
If it weren't for unions we would still be working 6 day weeks - 12 hours a day for far less than minimum wage.
Before spouting off, do a bit of reading on the history of the workplace in Canada.
I am thankful to live in a country where people can choose to go on strike and not be thrown in jail - or worse.

There were also a lot of benefits to being ruled by a monarch. It doesn't mean I want to go back to that either. Besides every valuable thing that unions fought for are now legislated. It's illegal to force someone to work 80 hours a week or to have 8 year old kids working in factories. Even if unions were to disappear tomorrow, those laws would still be there.

[Bobbyok]

Voting in favor of a strike is a simple bargaining tactic. You can vote yes, but still not actually want to go out.

I am aware of that - my point is that the union encourages it's use as a tactic in order to say publicly "our members want a strike" when, in your own words, they don't.

That is absolutely 100% correct and I am not sure what else you want me to say. It seems very simplistic to me, but perhaps I am missing something. I voted in favor of the strike, even though I didn't want one. Usually a strike requires a second vote, so in this case, I felt comfortable voting yes the first time. Second time around, well I am not sure how I would have voted. Thankfully it didn't come down to that.

I don't want you to say anything in particular. You just seem to think that there is no misdeed in the union encouraging members to vote in favour of a strike as a tactic. The union now has a mandate to strike in spite of the fact that members don't actually want to strike - and I'm just saying that if union members don't want a strike, this is a perfect example of the union interests not representing the interest of union members.

Out of curiosity, are LCBO employees able to opt out of the union? Or is it a closed shop? The closed shop goes back to the point someone made earlier about being able to choose from different options in the labour market - unions, government, and corporations are not the problems in and of themselves. Monopolies are, and unions, governments, and corporations alike, all tend to want to put themselves in monopoly positions.

[Bobbyok]

It is naive to think that corporations and governments wouldn't start clawing back if unions "lose some of their power". If you think otherwise, then your outlook on humanity is certainly more optimistic than mine.

Unions have already lost a lot of their power - mainly by virtue of the fact that unionization rates are on the decline. About the only industry in this country that isn't going that way is government. And that's why the unions that are still strong (again, mostly government) are fighting so hard to maintain power.

[$]

$
Have you studied 20th century History at all? How about the Industrial revolution in during the 19th century in Britain?

Sigh...I guess every forum needs a troll.

Troll? "someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion"

I'm the troll for pointing out the bullshit comment about unions? Go finish your bud light.


Industrial Revolution? You bet. That's the time when tens of thousands of farm workers in the middle of nowhere who broke their back for lousy pay, got better jobs in the city factories. The time of amazing growth rates and bettering of standards of living for all people. Unions fail to recognize that to increase the standard of living you need to increase productivity. Unions are not interested in increasing productivity, they are interested in the rest of us paying more for their inefficient work.

[SteelbackGuy]

I am aware of that - my point is that the union encourages it's use as a tactic in order to say publicly "our members want a strike" when, in your own words, they don't.

That is absolutely 100% correct and I am not sure what else you want me to say. It seems very simplistic to me, but perhaps I am missing something. I voted in favor of the strike, even though I didn't want one. Usually a strike requires a second vote, so in this case, I felt comfortable voting yes the first time. Second time around, well I am not sure how I would have voted. Thankfully it didn't come down to that.

I don't want you to say anything in particular. You just seem to think that there is no misdeed in the union encouraging members to vote in favour of a strike as a tactic. The union now has a mandate to strike in spite of the fact that members don't actually want to strike - and I'm just saying that if union members don't want a strike, this is a perfect example of the union interests not representing the interest of union members.

Out of curiosity, are LCBO employees able to opt out of the union? Or is it a closed shop? The closed shop goes back to the point someone made earlier about being able to choose from different options in the labour market - unions, government, and corporations are not the problems in and of themselves. Monopolies are, and unions, governments, and corporations alike, all tend to want to put themselves in monopoly positions.

We are required to join the union. You may not opt out of it. I'm sure there are a few who would do so.

[JerCraigs]

There were also a lot of benefits to being ruled by a monarch. It doesn't mean I want to go back to that either. Besides every valuable thing that unions fought for are now legislated. It's illegal to force someone to work 80 hours a week or to have 8 year old kids working in factories. Even if unions were to disappear tomorrow, those laws would still be there.

1) Monarch? Really?
2) Back in 2000, Bill 147, the new Employment Standards Act, was introduced proposing an increase in the maximum work week from 48 to 60 hours and other changes to overtime pay. Laws can change rather quickly.

[JerCraigs]

I'm the troll for pointing out the bullshit comment about unions? Go finish your bud light.

Way to rise to the level of the conversation. I applaud your well thought out arguments and bow to your superior reasoning.

[The_Jester]

Troll? "someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion"

I'm the troll for pointing out the bullshit comment about unions? Go finish your bud light...

That's supposed to be ironic? No?

[$]

I'm the troll for pointing out the bullshit comment about unions? Go finish your bud light.

Way to rise to the level of the conversation. I applaud your well thought out arguments and bow to your superior reasoning.

Why don't you finish your bud light...with lime!!!

[MattB]

JerCraigs wrote:

Back in 2000, Bill 147, the new Employment Standards Act, was introduced proposing an increase in the maximum work week from 48 to 60 hours and other changes to overtime pay. Laws can change rather quickly.

The Employment Standards Amendment Act (Hours of Work and Other Matters), 2004, was passed on December 9, 2004. Generally, if your boss wants you to work more than 48 hours a week, you (or your union)have to give written consent, and then the Ministry of Labour has to give an OK.

[Belgian]

Big surprise.

http://www.opseu.org/news/press2009/jun-23a-2009.htm

so much for last call!

Maybe shorter checkout lines today for once. To go on a slight beef, it's amazing how often it takes ten minutes to make a small purchase, when there are closed checkout lanes and plenty of staff just hanging around. Is good service completely voluntary in some locations?? (Obviously this isn't directed at the locations and staff that actually try for American-level service. You have all my love.)

[toweringpine]

JerCraigs wrote:

Back in 2000, Bill 147, the new Employment Standards Act, was introduced proposing an increase in the maximum work week from 48 to 60 hours and other changes to overtime pay. Laws can change rather quickly.

The Employment Standards Amendment Act (Hours of Work and Other Matters), 2004, was passed on December 9, 2004. Generally, if your boss wants you to work more than 48 hours a week, you (or your union)have to give written consent, and then the Ministry of Labour has to give an OK.

There is no doubt that unions are a mixed blessing. In the recent years they appear to have taken their wages and benefits to levels that appear unreasonable to many of us but you can bet that if they were all gone we'd be working 60 hours weeks for peanuts.

As for the short line ups today... of course the lines will be short, there is no product left to sell!!!

[Belgian]

True, at some locations shelves will be empty.

Unions of course begin as a good idea, each one of them. They are true advocates of legitimate worker needs. But it is like a cycle. A union can turn into its own opposite, serving the union rather than the workers, and making demands that hurt the credibility of the workforce, or even make it financially unsustainable. Neither will serve worker needs, but it happens and then we have things like plant closings that practically wipe out whole towns and communities.

This is why we need a balanced view of everything unions say and do, rather than unquestioningly assume they are the very linchpin of workforce stability. Every union may have only a certain useful life span.

[Bobbyok]

There is no doubt that unions are a mixed blessing. In the recent years they appear to have taken their wages and benefits to levels that appear unreasonable to many of us but you can bet that if they were all gone we'd be working 60 hours weeks for peanuts.

What proportion of the workforce do you think is unionized? Excluding the government, it's less than 20% (around 17 in 2007). Are the other 80% all working 60 hour weeks for peanuts?