Should unions be banned from government workplaces?

On another thread grumpyrom wrote: WTF? Why shouldn't they be allowed to unionize? Give me a break. What does being a government emloyee have to do with it? I know you HATE unions with a passion but why single out government employees? Should they be at the total mercy of the government of the day when it comes to working environment while other workers have opportunities they don't? How is that fair?

You idea is brilliant...except it would lead to a general strike. Enjoy watching society crumble.

Back in the day unions helped to bring the workplace out of the dark ages leading to a safer work environment. Today there are many laws and regulations enforced by government largely replacing the role unions used to play.

So, it's a good question. Are unions even necessary today in government workplaces? Is the government such an employer that workers need union protection? Is there anything else the union brings to the government workplace that makes their involvement necessary?

Try to remain civil in this discussion.

Interesting story here:

Unions' Labour Day bogey: government cuts

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/09/06/labour-day-unions.html

As I said...

One could argue that the unions have taken over what the government should have been doing all along, that is, arruring that 'workers' are treated fairly.blah blah.

Unions just add another layer of costs to the equation, not to mention the friggin' bureaucracy that is extremely expensive.

I can see the value in collective bargaining for essential services ( Teachers, Nurses, Police, Fire). But generally if you have a fair employer-employee relationship, you shouldn't need a union.

I'm pro onion, always have been, always will be.

grumpy old man wrote:Back in the day unions helped to bring the workplace out of the dark ages leading to a safer work environment. Today there are many laws and regulations enforced by government largely replacing the role unions used to play.

So, it's a good question. Are unions even necessary today in government workplaces? Is the government such an employer that workers need union protection? Is there anything else the union brings to the government workplace that makes their involvement necessary?

Try to remain civil in this discussion.

Without a union, government as an employer has the ultimate authority to mandate whatever changes the like unilaterally regardless of how it affects it's employees. It would be an extremely unbalanced bargaining situation between employee and employer with the employer holding all the power. Government unions are the only thing that keeps that power balance somewhat in check.

We can't assume that the government would default into some sort of contentious management practise.

I think the government would find out very quickly that if they treat their employees unfairly (never mind illegally) those employees a) would leave government jobs in an instant and 2) not want to work there.

We would not allow that to happen.

We have a full slate of laws now that more than meet the concerns that gave rise to the need of unions a long, long time ago. They serve little other real need now - other than demands that most often exceed the rate of pay/growth that the rest of us know as our working reality. The public has little tolerance left for the chronic threat of service stoppage and it's time to recognize these unions have little support other than from their own self-serving brotherhoods. As well - unions should have no political affiliations. That should be properly considered to be racketeering.

Wait a minute here...somebody is saying that the government (the people) will be fighting against the workers (the people).

Don't ever forget that the voter (the people) form the government.

grumpyrom wrote:

Without a union, government as an employer has the ultimate authority to mandate whatever changes the like unilaterally regardless of how it affects it's employees. It would be an extremely unbalanced bargaining situation between employee and employer with the employer holding all the power. Government unions are the only thing that keeps that power balance somewhat in check.

Ummmmm.....they do that already. So essentially what you are saying is that unions are useless?

I'm thinking specifically about the government taking away the teachers union's right to strike. One of the consequences of this action is that there is no impetus for divisions to negotiate a contract in a timely manner. It's not unusual now for teachers to sign a contract with only 6 mos to a year remaining in the 3 yr term.

Good point St Norberter. I wonder how employees at government departments (police, health, education...) that currently do not allow employees to strike are faring? I'll bet they are grossly under-paid, over-worked and under-appreciated. They must have a helluva time keeping staff...

Not all unions are created equally. In Manitoba we have the wimp MGEU union, that does as government dictates and negotiates crappy wages and benefits. In Manitoba at least, government employees would be better off without their union.

grumpy old man wrote:Good point St Norberter. I wonder how employees at government departments (police, health, education...) that currently do not allow employees to strike are faring? I'll bet they are grossly over-paid, over-worked and under-appreciated. They must have a helluva time keeping staff...

Well, being married to someone who is in one of those departments, I would have to say:

No
Yes
Yes

and as for the keeping staff portion - moreso need to look at the number of people on stress leave.

If teacher's can't strike, then why can nurses or vice versa?

I don't know any police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, nurses... So I can't comment on how they feel about their work environment.

My niece is a teacher, so I'm limited to her view of that world. I did work in a couple hospitals for a few years MANY moons ago so I'm not sure how valid my experience is.

But all jobs have stress attached to them. Some much more than others, especially public sector employees. Police, nurses and teachers seem to be especially high stress jobs.

Would more money help alleviate the stress? Perhaps more vacation would. I'm sure there are mechanisms available to help there.

btw please note I changed my post subtly...

As far as I know, nurses can't REALLY strike, nor can doctors, police officers, fire fighters, 911 operators, police/paramedic dispatchers, etc.

They can "limit" the number of people working, by only covering a mandated shift requirement, and with the short-staffing in all these areas...it would create havoc.

But as they are all considered "essential", they cannot just shutdown their services completely.

Our company works frequently with most of these groups though, we do work in hospitals, police stations, government buildings all over the Province.

We also deal with trades who are part of trade-unions, and are effected by their whims.

I can personally say that unions are a waste. Those that run the unions are in it for themselves...and many of them run it solely for the "power trip" it gives them to boss people around.

It was stated before, but I'll repeat a bit...

Unions were created in a time when it was not uncommon for someone to refuse work because they thought they would DIE, and an employer would either fire them for insubordination, or FORCE them into doing the task anyway.
It was not uncommon for owners of businesses to have a small "enforcement" team, whose only real job was to make sure others worked incessantly, or face mental and physical "consequences" if they didn't.

Workers, even in small groups, had nobody to turn to for support either.
If they called the cops, the cops were usually "paid off", or could do nothing as there was no real proof, or witnesses.
If they called the government, that didn't help either, as for larger employers, they usually had the politicians in their pockets anyway.

The only real change was when enough workers got together to form their unions...and it's not like they got 50 people and said "we're a union, we're going to fight you".
They got HUNDREDS of workers together to stand up and say "that's enough"...and not just to the boss, the key is they used the expanding press to get their word out. They used journalists and the court systems to process their complaints and get LAWS changed.

And it didn't happen in a matter of months...it took YEARS to accomplish what they did, and to change the "perception" of employment (at least in N. America).


In TODAY'S society though, at least in MOST areas of the US & Canada, Unions have become the tyrannical groups they were fighting when founded. They have ingrained themselves so much into the workforce, that even if you got a job at a business where a union was present...you aren't even allowed to CHOOSE if you want to join the union or not. You are automatically expected to, and the employer must deduct money YOU'VE earned, to pay a group that you may or may not even want to be a part of.

Unions have also created an environment where people are protected from being disciplined for being useless and not working.

(Rhetorical)
How many of you are members of a union where you work?
How many of you are on the Sandbox WHILE at work (ie. not actually working)
How many of you fear your boss will walk in and see you on the Sandbox (instead of working) and you'll get fired "on the spot"?

If you're in a Union, did you know they CAN'T fire you for that (with most agreements). I actually read an article somewhere (see if I can find it), that a Union in the US is putting in their next contract negotiation, that the company is not allowed to block online social sites (Facebook, MySpace) or messaging programs (AIM, Yahoo Messenger) because they can be used for business OR personal use, and by blocking them it degrades the quality of work being completed, and increases the STRESS of work.

Don't get me wrong...there are still times when a collective group may be necessary in securing a reasonable contract for specific specialty professions. But an association that is OPTIONAL for membership may be just as effective in obtaining the desired result.

But in most cases, an individual can negotiate a specific concern much better than any union/association rep...as many concerns are individual or resigned to a small group rather than a full "union-support" issue.

That, and a simple phone call to the labour board (something that did not exist years ago) can often solve most issues that can't be resolved individually.

grumpyrom wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:Back in the day unions helped to bring the workplace out of the dark ages leading to a safer work environment. Today there are many laws and regulations enforced by government largely replacing the role unions used to play.

So, it's a good question. Are unions even necessary today in government workplaces? Is the government such an employer that workers need union protection? Is there anything else the union brings to the government workplace that makes their involvement necessary?

Try to remain civil in this discussion.

Without a union, government as an employer has the ultimate authority to mandate whatever changes the like unilaterally regardless of how it affects it's employees. It would be an extremely unbalanced bargaining situation between employee and employer with the employer holding all the power. Government unions are the only thing that keeps that power balance somewhat in check.

uh..no actually they have the ultimate authority to say to each individual employee.. this is your salary, these are your benefits. The employee has the ultimate authority to decide if it wants to be an employee under those conditions, if the answer is no they have the option of counter

"It would be an extremely unbalanced bargaining situation between employee and employer with the employer holding all the power."
yet somehow 50%+ businesses in Canada manage... odd aint it?

I have a question.

Police are to serve and protect, right?

And the Canadian Armed Forces are to serve and protect, right?

My question is why are the police allowed to be unionized and the members of the Canadian Armed forces are not?

IF the Canadian Armed Forces are anything like the US...

it's part of the contract signed when joining.

I know when I joined the US Army...there was about 30 pages of contracts to be signed, giving up all kinds of "rights" and such.

One prime example is the AWOL issue.
Join the military...and decide you want out...it's an EXTREME hassle to do so until your "contract" has expired.

Become a cop, and decide you want out...it's basically walk in and quit.

AGEsAces wrote:IF the Canadian Armed Forces are anything like the US...

it's part of the contract signed when joining.

I know when I joined the US Army...there was about 30 pages of contracts to be signed, giving up all kinds of "rights" and such.

One prime example is the AWOL issue.
Join the military...and decide you want out...it's an EXTREME hassle to do so until your "contract" has expired.

Become a cop, and decide you want out...it's basically walk in and quit.

So, how about this.

If you want to work for the Government of Canada, Province of _______, or City of __________. You must sign a "contract". Easy way to eliminate unions from the workplace. Just grandfather existing employees, and all new ones will be non unionized. In 3o years, problem solved. This would work with Doctors, Nurses, Police, Fire fighters and etc...

That way we could eliminate the catastrophic mass hyseria that would surely follow if Unions were just simply legislated out of existence. Yes?

That's a great idea, LD. Unfortunately, our tax money is being spent to create an institution to celebrate and promote the labour movement, unions and unionism - all forces that would be against your idea.

Triniman wrote:That's a great idea, LD. Unfortunately, our tax money is being spent to create an institution to celebrate and promote the labour movement, unions and unionism - all forces that would be against your idea.

And this institution is?

Human Rights museum.

HRM!

woot! first to answer

.