This is a huge problem in the construction industry. With so many things happening and everything needing to slot in on a certain schedule it's understandable that all cannot go smoothly. And boy does it not go smoothly! It's too easy for management to blame the worker for all ills. A big construction project is not like a production facility where bugs can be ironed out over time. Way to many variables. But the worker gets blamed for every problem. A union is no help there either. Union is only good to keep the wages livable. I pity the solid tradesman who has to grind it out for $25hr, no benefits. BTDT
|
|
|
Unifor vote for Toyota
- Thread starter Nick_f
- Start date
This is a huge problem in the construction industry. With so many things happening and everything needing to slot in on a certain schedule it's understandable that all cannot go smoothly. And boy does it not go smoothly! It's too easy for management to blame the worker for all ills. A big construction project is not like a production facility where bugs can be ironed out over time. Way to many variables. But the worker gets blamed for every problem. A union is no help there either. Union is only good to keep the wages livable. I pity the solid tradesman who has to grind it out for $25hr, no benefits. BTDT
and that right there is the problem with Canadian unions, somebody got all the workers together and voted for a strike. The real reason for the strike was not known.
If we didn't strike we would have been locked out (we should have let them but we're new to this). We knew why we were striking but when it ended with only very minor changes to our contract it raises eyebrows, especially after 2.5 months.
yup, I watched my Dad go to Toronto everyday to walk the picket line at Goodyear tire. After 97 days they settled and got a minimal increase. When they factored the lost wages for 97 days, strike pay at that time was $28.00 a week (1972?) , if they worked 7.5 yrs at the new wage, it covered out what they lost in the 97 days. The union declared it an awesome victory. He left just after the strike and got a job in maintenance at Sheridan college, now there was a union gig that made sure no garbage bag weighed over 16kgs and all the shovels had a maximum capacity of half load. He retired with an indexed pension that made him a Chief Conductor on the gravy train.
There was no declared victory, we know that, the union knows that. We didn't loose our seniority or give in to the massive list of things the company wanted us to give up. We had no demands and were fine with working under the old contract. With the company making record profits I can't see why it would have been an issue. The only thing that changed was we can start work 30min earlier or work 30min later without getting over time if it's still an 8hr day. We think the 4 company's were having issues with supplying material for construction jobs and were going to take a penalty for not getting the job done on time. With a labour dispute they will not get penalized for late installation and we're still having issues with the machinery being manufactured for us to start the installation on time.
I was raised to be anti-union, but after working for a well-known company (which was/is one of the best to work for in Canada) I can definitely see the worth of having a Union. There were many times that intervention was necessary to ensure that the members were treated fairly - free from what I call the "capricious acts of management." These acts ran the gamut from denial of sick time pay to termination of employment. My Union was successful in resolving these issues for the benefit of the employee most of the time.
It has to be realized that companies exist solely to make profits for shareholders, and workers are increasingly viewed as nothing more than tools of production (as exemplified by RBC offshoring their IT department to India, throwing their Canadian employees out of work.) People are of little or no value - most can easily be replaced because money has become the new god and having a sense of responsibility to the employee is out the window (its not surprising then, that employees increasingly have diminished loyalty to their employers because of this.) There are many ways that a Union can benefit a company but it takes a little courage and goodwill on both sides to improve the working relationship so they can work together to find solutions that are of benefit to both worker and company. A lot of companies are stupid if they don't take advantage of the Union to help them manage their employees - as an example: If an employee consistently shows up late for work, the smart manager would have a chat with the Union Steward about it- the Steward should then go and straighten out the employee before the heavy hand of management falls upon them with disciplinary action. Everyone wins!
Viewing Unions in a historical context, a lot of the social programs and legislation (Medicare, UI, OHSA, etc.) that we take for granted today probably would not exist if not for pressure exerted by Unions in the past. Many Canadian workers lost their lives striving for a better deal for all and now that we have these things, are we to dishonour their sacrifices by doing away with Unions altogether? I think not. There is still a strong role for Unions to play in maintaining (or even improving) these social programs and legislation. Big money holds all the cards - and the ears of the politicians. Unions are a necessary balance for the good of society in general. For history buffs, see this Wikipedia article on the Winnipeg General strike: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_General_Strike
There has been some comments on strikes here - allow me to chime in on this issue as well. Companies hold all the cards here - the only card the workers hold is their ability to collectively withdraw their labour if they don't agree to the conditions the company proposes. In the few times I was on strike, it was never about the wages... it was usually about principles that are the bedrock of the Union movement - fairness and equality. In most strikes, everyone loses money (except for the middle managers of the company, who still must work and usually make a financial windfall out of a strike) and it takes years to recover those losses (if ever.) Strikes are never taken lightly - especially by the workers who have families to feed and mortgages to pay. Sometimes, unfortunately, the Union must draw the line in the sand and the result is withdrawal of labour. When it comes to wages/benefits/ working conditions - If a company is making good profits, what is so wrong with the workers having a share of that? It was their labour that produced the profit, after all.
It has to be realized that companies exist solely to make profits for shareholders, and workers are increasingly viewed as nothing more than tools of production (as exemplified by RBC offshoring their IT department to India, throwing their Canadian employees out of work.) People are of little or no value - most can easily be replaced because money has become the new god and having a sense of responsibility to the employee is out the window (its not surprising then, that employees increasingly have diminished loyalty to their employers because of this.) There are many ways that a Union can benefit a company but it takes a little courage and goodwill on both sides to improve the working relationship so they can work together to find solutions that are of benefit to both worker and company. A lot of companies are stupid if they don't take advantage of the Union to help them manage their employees - as an example: If an employee consistently shows up late for work, the smart manager would have a chat with the Union Steward about it- the Steward should then go and straighten out the employee before the heavy hand of management falls upon them with disciplinary action. Everyone wins!
Viewing Unions in a historical context, a lot of the social programs and legislation (Medicare, UI, OHSA, etc.) that we take for granted today probably would not exist if not for pressure exerted by Unions in the past. Many Canadian workers lost their lives striving for a better deal for all and now that we have these things, are we to dishonour their sacrifices by doing away with Unions altogether? I think not. There is still a strong role for Unions to play in maintaining (or even improving) these social programs and legislation. Big money holds all the cards - and the ears of the politicians. Unions are a necessary balance for the good of society in general. For history buffs, see this Wikipedia article on the Winnipeg General strike: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_General_Strike
There has been some comments on strikes here - allow me to chime in on this issue as well. Companies hold all the cards here - the only card the workers hold is their ability to collectively withdraw their labour if they don't agree to the conditions the company proposes. In the few times I was on strike, it was never about the wages... it was usually about principles that are the bedrock of the Union movement - fairness and equality. In most strikes, everyone loses money (except for the middle managers of the company, who still must work and usually make a financial windfall out of a strike) and it takes years to recover those losses (if ever.) Strikes are never taken lightly - especially by the workers who have families to feed and mortgages to pay. Sometimes, unfortunately, the Union must draw the line in the sand and the result is withdrawal of labour. When it comes to wages/benefits/ working conditions - If a company is making good profits, what is so wrong with the workers having a share of that? It was their labour that produced the profit, after all.
Last edited:
My wife must be part of union, she has no choice ..... and we both shake our heads at what their union is, at times, trying to do. Like intentionally poking into a hornet nest which in the end is causing more harm then good.
The major issue in my opinion is that most unions are not capable of distinguishing between what's reasonable in today's economies and free border less global markets and what's not. They seemingly only know one way, never the other.
Should most sweatshops in Asia have some form of union, read more like a representative, looking after their safety etc. concerns. Absolutely they should because they have an extremely long way to go, but I don't see how that is relevant in major developed countries like Canada where the number of labor and safety laws keep most workers safe nowadays. It's all about pay, benefits, pensions .... it's all good, until they price themselves out of the market ...
The major issue in my opinion is that most unions are not capable of distinguishing between what's reasonable in today's economies and free border less global markets and what's not. They seemingly only know one way, never the other.
Should most sweatshops in Asia have some form of union, read more like a representative, looking after their safety etc. concerns. Absolutely they should because they have an extremely long way to go, but I don't see how that is relevant in major developed countries like Canada where the number of labor and safety laws keep most workers safe nowadays. It's all about pay, benefits, pensions .... it's all good, until they price themselves out of the market ...
When they increase the minimum wage past $13. You can kiss many more jobs good bye. Look how many we lost when it went too $10. 46,000 jobs lost in Dec 2013 alone.
Media stopped reporting job losses and just report jobs that were created.
Media stopped reporting job losses and just report jobs that were created.
Unions are still needed, as there are still lots of crappy employers out there. But I don't think either Toyota or Honda require unions here in Ontario.
This depends on your job and what industry your in. My job is dangerous without the right tools and equipment and puts the public in harms way. If your job isn't highly skilled you can easily be replaced. Refuse work because something is unsafe I guarantee the employer will find any way to get rid of you.
One might also consider the 7.5 yrs. before the strike. Wages and benefits far above what would have been without collective power. Would your dad have even dropped his resume at Goodyear if it was a non union outfit? I see he's 2 for 2 in the examples provided. BTW, construction workers routinely do 97+ days off. Every year.
So without your union you wouldn't have the right tools and public would be in harm's way? Do I understand that correctly? What is the field we are talking about here? Construction is where I could see this happening, because there's thousands of workplaces, not like one centralized factory .... but I don't remember hearing about construction workers on strike. Is there even a union?
Just to be clear, if that's happening, in a country like Canada it would certainly not be right.
Now moving back to the subject of the topic, I am somewhat sure that there's not a single auto-worker in Canada who would be missing the right tools for the job or has to worry about his or public's safety when assembling vehicles ....
Actually the reason he went to Goodyear was he needed a full time job, he was a farmer and winter highway plow operator and weekend diesel mechanic and mom wouldn't marry him without a real job. When he landed at Sheridan it was because it was the former Milton Heavy Equipment operators campus and he loved diesel tractors and stuff, everyday was like Christmas till an audit sent ALL the managers and directors packing. (think Enron lite) . He hated unions with a vengeance and was never in favor , but he went along to get along. He had been a member of three unions before he was out, he did like the pension plans, so does mom since two had survivor benefits.
Uhh well there was an elevator technicians strike last summer, you obviously weren't effected by it so you must have been in a large corporations building if you had to use an elevator because that's all that got looked after and by unqualified, unlicensed personnel. The TSSA didn't even do their jobs for 2.5 months or there would have been 100's of elevators shut down because they had not been maintained properly. Sadly it was the disabled mostly that suffered.
The non-union sector for our trade doesn't have the training we do which we take great pride in having. Go to Durham college for 6 months and you get a liscence to work non-union. We spend 4 years in an apprenticeship program and don't recognize any other schooling. If you want to work with us, you'll be trained like us.
There's many different unions as far as cunstructuon workers go, I'm surprised this is a new thing for you. Plumbers, electricians, iron workers, general labour, hvac, elevators, drywallers, and I'm probably missing some, all have unions.
Inreb, I guarantee you that in my trade 97+ days off a year will get you fired without 80+ doctors notes. I'd like to see where you got that statistic. Every year I take 3 weeks, 2 at Christmas and 1 in the summer, some take 2 in the summer, that is the norm.
You misunderstood. Due to the nature of my trade I will work multiple jobs/companies per year. Usually there will be gaps between projects. Like I said earlier, my union is more of a hiring hall.
Ok I see what your saying. Ours is a hiring hall as well, we have multiple companies we can work for but all under the same local. We don't move from company to company unless your fired, quit, or get laid off which doesn't happen unless your an apprentice because of our seniority.
That, and if were easy to de-unionize once it's served its purpose. Unfortunately in order to justify their own existence (even once it's no longer justified) they end up killing the hand that feeds them. Sorry Gary.
Looks like it ain't happening for now.
http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/04/03/union_calls_off_toyota_vote.html
|
|
|
|
|