The Union is supposed to be there to protect the workers from various job hazards. Among these hazards are things like health and safety concerns, lousy pay, poor benefits, poor job security and various kinds of abuse.
That's what I expect unions to do, whether I agree with them or not.
I do not expect unions to protect and cover up for workers who are abusing other workers.
Call me crazy, but I thought that the union's job was to protect the victims, not the abusers.
Maybe they're a little confused.
They're so confused, in fact, that the employers have stepped in and filed a Human Rights complaint against the Union.
I mean, wow.
That's like Stephen Harper calling you on your sick day just to make sure you're not out on a golf course.
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
Friday, February 05, 2010
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
My Employee said to Your Employer
I'm gonna set your factory on fire.
Iko Iko an de.
In Italy, that's what they do when Alcatel-Lucent threatens to shut down their factory.
I told you the gas cans wouldn't stay empty.
I just hope they don't actually set themselves on fire. That won't teach a corporation anything other than a convenient way to avoid paying severance. On the other hand, you'd have to burn down a lot of factories before the corporation's insurance would go up enough to make them notice, so I don't know if that's a good idea. But it would be flashy.
Iko Iko an de.
In Italy, that's what they do when Alcatel-Lucent threatens to shut down their factory.
I told you the gas cans wouldn't stay empty.
I just hope they don't actually set themselves on fire. That won't teach a corporation anything other than a convenient way to avoid paying severance. On the other hand, you'd have to burn down a lot of factories before the corporation's insurance would go up enough to make them notice, so I don't know if that's a good idea. But it would be flashy.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
McGuinty: Chrysler's Problems are the Union's Fault
Early Friday morning, a letter was published in which the Chrysler executive demanded, in public, that the union accede to its demands in order to save the company. As I explained, the real problem was that Chrysler had never put aside any money for the pensions it had promised its employees. Instead, it now includes the cost of those pensions as part of the current employees' labour cost.
The effect is to make the workers seem expensive relative to those at neighbouring plants when, in reality, they make about the same amount of money.
Now the Premier would like to chime in with this helpful comment:
Now once you've read Chrysler's original letter and the article linked above, don't you ever, ever try to tell me that the Globe and Mail is a left wing newspaper. Never.
We all have to make sacrifices, Mr. Premier? What sacrifices are the executives making? Are they giving up their life insurance? Have they already surrendered semi-private hospital coverage? Have they acknowledged the "reality of the time" by nixing their own extended health care coverage?
That the newspaper has not answered these questions is answer enough. If the executives had made such sacrifices, it would have been written. That the newspaper fails to point out that the executives are not so heroic tells me all I need to know about the Globe and Mail.
Yes, Mr. McGuinty, you corporate stooge, please refrain from giving the union advice. Why don't you go advise the executives on how to take a cut? Why don't you advise the executives on how to properly protect their workers' pensions?
Your comment, sir, that we "all" have to make sacrifices, is entirely disingenuous. "All" - to you - clearly means "the union". "All" clearly does not include the upper class people. What would happen if those people lost their gold-plated benefits? What horrors? We need top talent in the executive! We just have to overpay them! Don't you all understand!
If the executive of Chrysler want to keep their wonderful jobs, they first have to admit that they blew it. And by "it" I mean "the workers' pension fund". Then they have to volunteer to make the same sacrifices in terms of benefits that they ask of the workers. It won't mean as much, what with their salaries being so much higher, but it would look better. After that, they can admit that including the pension cost in the current labour cost is the height of hypocrisy
Then, with all of that admitted, perhaps the union and the executive can sit down and find a fair way to keep the plants open.
The effect is to make the workers seem expensive relative to those at neighbouring plants when, in reality, they make about the same amount of money.
Now the Premier would like to chime in with this helpful comment:
“I'm not going to provide specific advice to the union, except to say we all have to find a way to come to the table and make some sacrifices."
Now once you've read Chrysler's original letter and the article linked above, don't you ever, ever try to tell me that the Globe and Mail is a left wing newspaper. Never.
We all have to make sacrifices, Mr. Premier? What sacrifices are the executives making? Are they giving up their life insurance? Have they already surrendered semi-private hospital coverage? Have they acknowledged the "reality of the time" by nixing their own extended health care coverage?
That the newspaper has not answered these questions is answer enough. If the executives had made such sacrifices, it would have been written. That the newspaper fails to point out that the executives are not so heroic tells me all I need to know about the Globe and Mail.
Yes, Mr. McGuinty, you corporate stooge, please refrain from giving the union advice. Why don't you go advise the executives on how to take a cut? Why don't you advise the executives on how to properly protect their workers' pensions?
Your comment, sir, that we "all" have to make sacrifices, is entirely disingenuous. "All" - to you - clearly means "the union". "All" clearly does not include the upper class people. What would happen if those people lost their gold-plated benefits? What horrors? We need top talent in the executive! We just have to overpay them! Don't you all understand!
If the executive of Chrysler want to keep their wonderful jobs, they first have to admit that they blew it. And by "it" I mean "the workers' pension fund". Then they have to volunteer to make the same sacrifices in terms of benefits that they ask of the workers. It won't mean as much, what with their salaries being so much higher, but it would look better. After that, they can admit that including the pension cost in the current labour cost is the height of hypocrisy
Then, with all of that admitted, perhaps the union and the executive can sit down and find a fair way to keep the plants open.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Chrysler : Labour Rates and Other Obfuscations
If you were to read the news lately, you could be forgiven for thinking that North American auto manufacturers pay their workers more than Japanese auto manufacturers do - even the Japanese manufacturers that are located in North America.
This may be true, but it's a very small difference if it is. What you are actually seeing quoted in the news are the labour rates. A labour rate is not what the employees get paid. It's the company's way of adding up the company's cost of labour - which includes actual dollars per hour, plus cost of benefits, plus the cost of pensions of workers who are retired.
It's that last one that makes it look so unrealistic. So when the Globe and Mail publishes a letter from Chrysler to its employees which says, "... the all-in labour costs at Chrysler Canada are $76 per hour while the Toyota Canada all-in rate is approximately $57 per hour" it's important to understand that much of that $19 of difference is actually Chrysler Canada's error in not maintaining a pension fund for its retired employees. Instead, Chrysler Canada promised the pension (presumably winning concessions from employees when it made the promise) and then simply declared the cost of those pensions as part of the present-day worker's cost.
Imagine the Widget Company. It has 100 retired employees who receive $39k per year pensions. Let's say the Widget Company has a staff of 100 workers who are making $39k per year ($20 per hour). Under the definition of "labour rate" used by Chrysler, the Widget Company would declare that its labour cost is actually $40 per hour because the company is putting the burden of the pension plan it promised but never managed on its 100 present day workers.
Rip-off, you say? Of course it is. I would just call it lying, personally, but the world of finance is often full of such misdirection.
It would get even worse when the Thingamajig Company comes to town. Then the stockholders could get angry at the Widget Company and its atrocious $40 per hour workers. "Why look", they would say, "the new Thingamajig Company has a labour rate of just $22 per hour!" This is because it either has no pensioners yet or because it allows a 3rd party to manage their pensions with the extra $2 per hour.
"Egad", the shareholders would shout, "You workers must make concessions! The fault lies in your greed! Give up your hard won benefits! Cut your salaries! This is a recession!"
And so Chrysler publishes a list of things it feels should be taken from employees in order to make up for the fact that Chrysler didn't put money away to cover its promise of retirement benefits and pensions. Chrysler workers will need to have less pay and benefits than Toyota workers because of that pension cost in the labour rate.
So Chrysler makes a list of ways to bring down the labour rate. Please note that nowhere in that letter does it mention anything about cutting the benefits or salaries of executives. Should we assume that's already happened? I wouldn't assume anything of sort, personally.
Somehow, putting a cap on dispensing fees costs $2.16 an hour? That cries out for an explanation. Chrysler would like to take way your Life Insurance and your out of province health care coverage as well as your semi-private hospital bed. It wants to add to your health care premiums.
The list goes on, but the point is clear: it's the union's fault.
In a way I have to agree.
It is the union's fault. It is the workers' faults. They wanted a pension plan and they trusted a corporation to maintain, fund and manage it. Why would anyone, ever, trust a corporation to take care of a person? That's just not what corporations are good at. That's why we keep them out of health care and education.
This may be true, but it's a very small difference if it is. What you are actually seeing quoted in the news are the labour rates. A labour rate is not what the employees get paid. It's the company's way of adding up the company's cost of labour - which includes actual dollars per hour, plus cost of benefits, plus the cost of pensions of workers who are retired.
It's that last one that makes it look so unrealistic. So when the Globe and Mail publishes a letter from Chrysler to its employees which says, "... the all-in labour costs at Chrysler Canada are $76 per hour while the Toyota Canada all-in rate is approximately $57 per hour" it's important to understand that much of that $19 of difference is actually Chrysler Canada's error in not maintaining a pension fund for its retired employees. Instead, Chrysler Canada promised the pension (presumably winning concessions from employees when it made the promise) and then simply declared the cost of those pensions as part of the present-day worker's cost.
Imagine the Widget Company. It has 100 retired employees who receive $39k per year pensions. Let's say the Widget Company has a staff of 100 workers who are making $39k per year ($20 per hour). Under the definition of "labour rate" used by Chrysler, the Widget Company would declare that its labour cost is actually $40 per hour because the company is putting the burden of the pension plan it promised but never managed on its 100 present day workers.
Rip-off, you say? Of course it is. I would just call it lying, personally, but the world of finance is often full of such misdirection.
It would get even worse when the Thingamajig Company comes to town. Then the stockholders could get angry at the Widget Company and its atrocious $40 per hour workers. "Why look", they would say, "the new Thingamajig Company has a labour rate of just $22 per hour!" This is because it either has no pensioners yet or because it allows a 3rd party to manage their pensions with the extra $2 per hour.
"Egad", the shareholders would shout, "You workers must make concessions! The fault lies in your greed! Give up your hard won benefits! Cut your salaries! This is a recession!"
And so Chrysler publishes a list of things it feels should be taken from employees in order to make up for the fact that Chrysler didn't put money away to cover its promise of retirement benefits and pensions. Chrysler workers will need to have less pay and benefits than Toyota workers because of that pension cost in the labour rate.
So Chrysler makes a list of ways to bring down the labour rate. Please note that nowhere in that letter does it mention anything about cutting the benefits or salaries of executives. Should we assume that's already happened? I wouldn't assume anything of sort, personally.
Somehow, putting a cap on dispensing fees costs $2.16 an hour? That cries out for an explanation. Chrysler would like to take way your Life Insurance and your out of province health care coverage as well as your semi-private hospital bed. It wants to add to your health care premiums.
The list goes on, but the point is clear: it's the union's fault.
In a way I have to agree.
It is the union's fault. It is the workers' faults. They wanted a pension plan and they trusted a corporation to maintain, fund and manage it. Why would anyone, ever, trust a corporation to take care of a person? That's just not what corporations are good at. That's why we keep them out of health care and education.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Unions and Goodness
Unions have always been a mixed blessing. Historically, unions of workers have given us a lot of the things we hold dear. Reasonable working hours, weekends, benefits, living wages and worker's rights against abuse are all valuable things. When the rights and wages of the lowest people on the ladder are improved, we get two main benefits. One is that the wages of the rest of us go up. The other is that unions shift wealth toward the poorest which helps fuel our mass consumption driven economy as well as improve the education and health possibilities for those with lower incomes.
It's a much more reliable method of improving things than, say, giving massive tax cuts to corporations and wealthy people and hoping that this magically improves the lives of poor people through some unspecified mechanism (usually given the implication-laden title of "trickle down").
But unions have also used their heft to prevent innovation by mechanization, to help workers do their jobs poorly (thus "dealer prep") and to protect workers who are actually lousy at their jobs.
I read this article today and I found it idiotic.
GM is laying off 2600 workers at its truck and SUV plant and Buzz Hargrove, the super powerful union leader, has declared that he won't let it happen.
Is he insane? The market for SUVs and trucks could not have declined? Has he seen the price of gasoline? Of course North Americans are finally getting smarter and realizing that the giant vehicles they drive are expensive and irresponsible.
What is the argument here? That no one saw this coming? What you should have been doing, Mr. Union Leader, is negotiating for the past several years, on behalf of your brothers, to have those factories slowly converted over to efficient passenger cars in advance of this very, very obvious impending crisis.
It's that kind of behaviour that frustrates me. There is a place for the Union concept. Democracy simply can not react quickly enough to protect large numbers of workers from large scale abuse - especially with the penchant corporations have shown for trust violations. A Union or Federation can step in and threaten to halt production in order to extract fairness from the corporation rather than having all of the workers uproot their lives to change jobs.
But this is not it. This is not what the Union should be doing - attempting to stave off the unavoidable tide of change. I'm not too worried though, about the plight of these particular workers. I hear there are autoworking jobs elsewhere:
It's a much more reliable method of improving things than, say, giving massive tax cuts to corporations and wealthy people and hoping that this magically improves the lives of poor people through some unspecified mechanism (usually given the implication-laden title of "trickle down").
But unions have also used their heft to prevent innovation by mechanization, to help workers do their jobs poorly (thus "dealer prep") and to protect workers who are actually lousy at their jobs.
I read this article today and I found it idiotic.
GM is laying off 2600 workers at its truck and SUV plant and Buzz Hargrove, the super powerful union leader, has declared that he won't let it happen.
Mr. Hargrove insisted the U.S. market could not possibly have declined so sharply in such a short period of time that GM would have to break that agreement.
Is he insane? The market for SUVs and trucks could not have declined? Has he seen the price of gasoline? Of course North Americans are finally getting smarter and realizing that the giant vehicles they drive are expensive and irresponsible.
What is the argument here? That no one saw this coming? What you should have been doing, Mr. Union Leader, is negotiating for the past several years, on behalf of your brothers, to have those factories slowly converted over to efficient passenger cars in advance of this very, very obvious impending crisis.
It's that kind of behaviour that frustrates me. There is a place for the Union concept. Democracy simply can not react quickly enough to protect large numbers of workers from large scale abuse - especially with the penchant corporations have shown for trust violations. A Union or Federation can step in and threaten to halt production in order to extract fairness from the corporation rather than having all of the workers uproot their lives to change jobs.
But this is not it. This is not what the Union should be doing - attempting to stave off the unavoidable tide of change. I'm not too worried though, about the plight of these particular workers. I hear there are autoworking jobs elsewhere:
The dramatic shift in U.S. demand benefits Asian-based auto makers, which have dominated the passenger-car side of the business since the 1990s, when Detroit focused the bulk of its product development and investment on SUVs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)