In this case, the union was a giant ball of mud whose only existence was to hold the government hostage.
As much as I dislike Thune power corporations can hold, unions are not a fix all and can become the same overlords.
In this case, the union was a giant ball of mud whose only existence was to hold the government hostage.
As much as I dislike Thune power corporations can hold, unions are not a fix all and can become the same overlords.
"Companies save billions of dollars by giving employees fake “manager” titles" is fraud. If you do not like unions because ONE did something that you do not like , how much do you hate companies were you have thousands of examples of bad behavior?
> As much as I dislike Thune power corporations can hold, unions are not a fix all and can become the same overlords.
I do not know what concept do you have about unions, but it seems come from anti-union propaganda and not from any reasonable definition of what a union is. Unions gave us the eight hour work week, vacations and many more rights. That is not "overlord" behavior but being able to negotiate with powerful corporations.
Not the person you are replying to, but I think discounting the behavior of unions as one-off is not helping. The examples I have are from outside US though - there are entire states where union presence is strong. Those states had a good industrial sector but over several decades the unions made it so problematic for the industries there that majority of businesses moved to states where there were no unions. Public calls for "strikes" and other work-stopping behavior and violence is common occurence in those states. So the risk of a union becoming mafia-like is more than just propaganda - it has plenty of examples worldwide in several countries.
My experience with unions was they were shady, jobs were given out based on nepotism, work was given out solely based on seniority and most work you did for them involved kickbacks.
Every system is only as good as the people in them.
You tell us, is a 47% increase in pay "normal"?
why did the body intended to help with the negotiations write this:
The union’s proposals “do not appear realistic for what should be a fairly advanced stage of negotiations. The numerous proposals are not focused and they would result in an increase to compensation far beyond what is reasonable,” reads the unanimous report signed by three commissioners.
Beyond his political vision, Black attempted to compete directly with Kenneth Thomson's media empire led in Canada by The Globe and Mail, which Black and many others perceived as the platform of the Liberal establishment.
--wikipedia
Is your point that you can copy/paste from wikipedia and provide no actual commentary??
Maybe. Depends on what the value they provide is.
In the tech industry, getting a 47% raise by job hopping to a new job that does the exact same thing, isn't unheard of, so it seems entirely plausible it could be justified. If it actually is in this case, i don't know, but its not crazy on its face.
Given that PSAC are asking for 4.5% raises during a period of high inflation I’m skeptical that this is that unreasonable rather than that there’s political hay to be made claiming it is. If they haven’t had cost of living increases for a while, they’ve already effectively had a pay cut.
Assuming that you did not read the article, I am not stating it is unfair, the independent board they engaged to help with the negotiations stated this.
Many people lost their jobs and had to take pay cuts during COVID, why are federal employees exempt from market forces?
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/federal-union-wants-4...
Because it is not going anywhere, they had an independent body get involved, their commentary says it all:
"The union’s proposals “do not appear realistic for what should be a fairly advanced stage of negotiations. The numerous proposals are not focused and they would result in an increase to compensation far beyond what is reasonable,” reads the unanimous report signed by three commissioners."
These same union employees are also fighting "unilateral contract changes" that mandates they return to the office, but did not fight the unilateral contract changes that allowed them to WFH in the first place?
The contract they signed was for "IN_PERSON" work, so they are simply being asked to do what they signed up for prior to COVID.
Its a negotiation. The union asking for the highest number it can get is what its supposed to do.
Only relevant in a spirit-like sense, but reading this line immediately reminded me of this scene in Intolerable Cruelty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PpQk63iIWw
Huh? They fight against contract changes they don't like, and don't fight against contract changes they do like? Sounds pretty crazy to me.