(04-30-2023, 10:40 PM)bravado Wrote: [ -> ]No buses tomorrow, there’s a strike.
Announced a tentative agreement today and then a strike at 10PM on a Sunday. The region and the union have no respect for citizens who need this to be reliable.
https://twitter.com/grt_row/status/1652854327084478465
Who should take the hit? I don't think it should be on one of the sides to give up everything. Then that's not a negotiation, that's a dictation.
What is the union asking for?
No idea to be honest but they don't exactly make a comfortably living wage unless they're lifers, so it could be about money or scheduling. Kind of shitty of them to do this at the very last second (especially after the media jumped the gun and wrote about the tentative deal) and to leave everyone in the dark as to what was going on apart from a Tweet that essentially just says "sorry everyone figure out how to get around".
To quote one reply I read in a Tweet thread about it all: they hate the people they serve. They really, really do.
Strikes wouldn't work if they weren't disruptive.
(05-03-2023, 07:30 AM)clasher Wrote: [ -> ]Strikes wouldn't work if they weren't disruptive.
Can you shout that a little louder for the folks in the back.
I find this so frustrating when people complain about this. Like sure...lets try and focus the disruption on the ruling class, but at the end of the day, disruption *IS* the power that workers have over employers...nothing more.
I especially hate it when people blame the striking workers exclusively for a strike...given the attitudes today, I do not see how it is possible that we have any labour protections today, most people seem perfectly willing to eat shit.
(05-03-2023, 09:35 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2023, 07:30 AM)clasher Wrote: [ -> ]Strikes wouldn't work if they weren't disruptive.
Can you shout that a little louder for the folks in the back.
I find this so frustrating when people complain about this. Like sure...lets try and focus the disruption on the ruling class, but at the end of the day, disruption *IS* the power that workers have over employers...nothing more.
I especially hate it when people blame the striking workers exclusively for a strike...given the attitudes today, I do not see how it is possible that we have any labour protections today, most people seem perfectly willing to eat shit.
This is the utter lack of nuance that drives me nuts with union arguments.
It’s not ok to hold the region hostage to get your benefits, this isn’t a sustainable option for the future. Public employees just aren’t the same as private ones. In this case, the “ruling class” is all of us citizens.
(05-03-2023, 10:03 AM)bravado Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2023, 09:35 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Can you shout that a little louder for the folks in the back.
I find this so frustrating when people complain about this. Like sure...lets try and focus the disruption on the ruling class, but at the end of the day, disruption *IS* the power that workers have over employers...nothing more.
I especially hate it when people blame the striking workers exclusively for a strike...given the attitudes today, I do not see how it is possible that we have any labour protections today, most people seem perfectly willing to eat shit.
This is the utter lack of nuance that drives me nuts with union arguments.
It’s not ok to hold the region hostage to get your benefits, this isn’t a sustainable option for the future. Public employees just aren’t the same as private ones. In this case, the “ruling class” is all of us citizens.
If you find strikes that disruptive, then make your voice heard and tell the region to adequately meet their workers' needs so they don't have to strike anymore. No one WANTS to strike. It sucks, they know they're letting people down, but the alternative is letting themselves get taken advantage of by their employer. Strikes are the only reason we have so many of the benefits we enjoy today, like 40-hour workweeks and the concept of a weekend. The disruption is the point, and I will support them in it, because they set a positive precedent for workplace standards for the rest of us.
(05-03-2023, 10:03 AM)bravado Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2023, 09:35 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Can you shout that a little louder for the folks in the back.
I find this so frustrating when people complain about this. Like sure...lets try and focus the disruption on the ruling class, but at the end of the day, disruption *IS* the power that workers have over employers...nothing more.
I especially hate it when people blame the striking workers exclusively for a strike...given the attitudes today, I do not see how it is possible that we have any labour protections today, most people seem perfectly willing to eat shit.
This is the utter lack of nuance that drives me nuts with union arguments.
It’s not ok to hold the region hostage to get your benefits, this isn’t a sustainable option for the future. Public employees just aren’t the same as private ones. In this case, the “ruling class” is all of us citizens.
I don't think using phrasing like "held hostage" helps add nuance.
If you want nuance, then what you should say is that the region should be willing to put up with disruption to help put pressure on the union for a better deal. Of course, the fact is that we are not a monolith, some people, especially poor people are harmed much more by this strike than people who get to hob knob with our city council. To say nothing of the bureaucrats actually negotiating.
That being said, I don't know what you mean by public sector vs. private sector. I think unionized employees are generally in a better position than non-unionized workers, but I don't begrudge them the right to fight for better conditions. Everyone is underpaid today...well..with a small (say 1% ish) exception. It doesn't matter that they're doing better than people who are truly at the mercy of capitalist overloads so to speak.
(05-03-2023, 11:47 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]That being said, I don't know what you mean by public sector vs. private sector. I think unionized employees are generally in a better position than non-unionized workers, but I don't begrudge them the right to fight for better conditions. Everyone is underpaid today...well..with a small (say 1% ish) exception. It doesn't matter that they're doing better than people who are truly at the mercy of capitalist overloads so to speak.
Public sector means government and government funded organizations. Private sector means business. In the public sector in a democratic system, the owners are the people at large, as represented by the elected government. In the private sector, the owners are whichever individual owners or public shareholders happen to own the shares of the company (or are operating the unincorporated firm).
In the private sector, if the unions ask for too much and the managers give it to them, the business goes bankrupt. So managers have a real incentive to see to the business’ interests, and the unions can bargain vigorously but ultimately have to understand that there is only so much available. The union equalizes power between private interests.
In the public sector, if the unions ask for too much and managers give it to them, taxes go up and up and up. There is no effective mechanism for the populace to control the situation. An example is firefighter compensation (including pension), which I understand is absurdly high, to the point that every vacancy has hundreds or thousands of applicants. There is no reason why the entire populace should be taxed higher to pay above-market compensation to public employees. On the other hand, we shouldn’t expect to get highly skilled labour for cheap; I’ve seen it suggested that some public servants should be paid more so that better candidates can be attracted to the jobs.
The issue with firefighters is that every single one works for a public entity; there is no private equivalent of a firefighting service, so there's no way to see what a competitive salary would be. This applies to other specialized positions like police.
Bus drivers, however, can be found working for both public and private entities. It's much easier to see what a competitive salary is and what direction that job market is going in.
(05-04-2023, 04:58 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]The issue with firefighters is that every single one works for a public entity; there is no private equivalent of a firefighting service, so there's no way to see what a competitive salary would be. This applies to other specialized positions like police.
Bus drivers, however, can be found working for both public and private entities. It's much easier to see what a competitive salary is and what direction that job market is going in.
That’s true. However, price comparison is not the only way to evaluate what the market price is. If there is a massive oversupply of something, then the price is too high, and if there is a massive shortage, the price is too low. So if every job opening attracts hundreds of qualified applicants, it’s probably the case that the salary could be cut significantly without affecting fire safety, and there would also be the additional benefit of less work for the hiring team to wade through all those resumés. Similarly, if it’s hard to hire for a position, one possible fix is to increase the offered wages.
(05-04-2023, 04:58 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]The issue with firefighters is that every single one works for a public entity; there is no private equivalent of a firefighting service, so there's no way to see what a competitive salary would be. This applies to other specialized positions like police.
Bus drivers, however, can be found working for both public and private entities. It's much easier to see what a competitive salary is and what direction that job market is going in.
I don't really think this is a reasonable way of determining the "competitive salary"...
Private companies aren't operating on the razors edge of bankruptcy corporate profits have only grown in the past decades. Their wages are strongly depressed. Even if you look at unionised positions, it's not great, largely as a result of the weakness of unions I suspect.
Lack or excess of supply of qualified applicants is a reasonable argument for raising or decreasing pay. But have we not heard from GRT for the past year that they cannot hire enough operators?
As for "incentive for keeping costs down"...I really don't think that's true. Politicians are motivated to keep taxes low just as much as a CEO is motivated to increase shareholder profits, and frankly, for exactly the same reason.
(05-05-2023, 12:59 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Lack or excess of supply of qualified applicants is a reasonable argument for raising or decreasing pay. But have we not heard from GRT for the past year that they cannot hire enough operators?
Indeed! And they’re not the only employer with low wages to complain that they can’t find workers.
It would be interesting if GRT eventually fixed their recruitment problem by acceding to the union’s demands. Of course it’s not that simple — raising wages now won’t instantly make more people have bus driving licenses. But it can be expected to cause some people to consider a change of career.
(05-04-2023, 04:58 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]The issue with firefighters is that every single one works for a public entity; there is no private equivalent of a firefighting service, so there's no way to see what a competitive salary would be. This applies to other specialized positions like police.
I just remembered there is another issue with firefighter salaries: I suggested that part of the issue was that the employer’s representatives don’t have a robust incentive to negotiate forcefully. But actually firefighter wages are settled by an arbitrator who has no incentive or even a mandate to consider the appropriateness of the wages and the willingness of the employer to pay. I think they compare to other jurisdictions in a way that tends to result in the salaries ratcheting up and up and up.
Actually I shouldn’t pick on firefighters only. I think the same problem exists with the police as well. I’m not sure about paramedics; for some reason I feel like I haven’t heard the same thing about them.
Maybe we can make a deal: governments can decide on their own how much to pay their police and firefighters, but they’re not allowed to complain if they have few applicants.