Showing posts with label unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unions. Show all posts

Tuesday, 22 November 2011

Perusing the Headlines


I submitted my second ever Winnipeg Cat meme with that. I wonder if It'll make the cut? (Actually, I think I might have messed up somewhere and I'm not sure it worked.) Anyhow, just had to chuckle when I read the this:
This intervention into the collective bargaining process at Brandon University is as dangerous as it is outrageous," he said in a statement. "It confirms for us the pro-employer bias shown by this allegedly 'labour-friendly' government."
Oh my. Yeah, if you think the NDP is outrageously anti-labour, then I think your perspective on the matter needs just a little tweeking. With a sledge hammer.

Also: No. No you don't get paid extra for catching up on work that you have neglected to do because you chose to go on strike.

*****

Federal audit finds no evidence jobs created by $1 billion in stimulus cash.
Really? You really expect to be able to measure this somehow? Look, I told you about this already:
The recession ended so quickly, not because money was spent, but because people think money is being spent. Just like golf, or the voices that tell me to strangle dogs, it's all in the head.
I am dumbfounded that people are dumbfounded that we can't directly link jobs to stimulus spending. Look, if you're going to force the government to produce a report showing that it created jobs, they will produce a report that shows it created jobs, and the report will be a pile of steaming feces. Please don't make them to that. Let's all be adults here. We all know what the situation is.

*****

An online music magazine recently reported the demise of CDs. For fun, see if you can count the spelling and grammatical errors in that story.

Several mainstream media outlets have picked up on this story as though it has some credibility. I will acknowledge that CD popularity is decreasing, but when revenue from CD sales is still over 4x higher than from downloads, I think it may be premature to call the game.
Anecdotally , I have bought more CDs this year than in the past I-don't-know-how-many years. Mostly this is because they are so damned cheap now, no doubt due to market pressure from downloads, but still ... When CDs came out they were $15-20. Not in today's dollars, but in 19-whatever-it-was dollars. Today, CDs are still $15-20 regular price, but half the stock at HMV is on for $10 or $5. I bought an old Sound Garden CD just for the heck of it. I picked up Amy Winehouse because I like to listen to dead people. 5 bucks? Why not? Hey look, there's The Trews .. I'll get that too!


I do like having something tangible. I admit that, but I think many people do as well. So if you were thinking of putting a CD in somebody's stocking this Christmas, I just want to let you know that it's still okay to do that.

Sunday, 1 May 2011

Thoughts on the UofM CUPE 3909 strike vote

This past Friday, the University of Manitoba union CUPE 3909 representing teaching assistants, markers, and tutors voted to authorize strike action, rejecting the University's contract offer. The issue: wages, job security, and guaranteed hours, according to union President Matt McLean.

When I was at the U of M, I was all three of those things: TA, marker, tutor, as well as a research assistant. In fact, I too participated in a strike vote. I voted "no". Why? Because I had accepted my wage and conditions of employment when I took the job. What grounds did I have to demand more?

Besides, all of these jobs pay very well, relatively speaking. I was paid about double what I made at my weekend job. These were by far the best paying jobs I had in my life, at the time. Oddly, the hourly wage for a marker has not changed much from when I was doing it, although TA wages have gone up a fair bit. Even still, the $13/hr you make as a marker is better than what most students could expect at any alternative employment, which often involves a spatula.

In addition, it was common to get paid for more hours than were worked, especially for markers. My first marking job: I handed back the papers and told the professor that it took me 25 hours to complete them, even though he told me in advance that his budget was for 50 hours. "Are you sure it didn't take you 50 hours?" he asked? "No, only 25" I said. He looked at me like I was some crazy person, before explaining that normally profs are expected to spend their whole budget. I was only being honest, but I didn't know about "the understanding." I didn't make that mistake again.

On principle, I don't generally agree with striking for wages or job security. There are economic implications to having an inflexible labour market that such actions can lead to, but my general attitude can be summed up more simply as: "If you aren't happy with your job, get a different one." Mind you: the work force for these jobs is a captive one -- you can't exactly get a job as a TA at SFU when you're a student at the U of M. But on the other hand, these are plum jobs, and there is a lot of competition for them. I would have done the work for half the money, not just because I needed the money, but because at that stage of my life a TA position was by far the best looking thing on my résumé.

Although I don't agree with striking for wage increases or job security, I can understand the motivation in some circumstances -- but not this one. These are not career jobs. A person can not expect to be a marker or student lecturer for any more than a few years. Job security should be a non-issue, and the wages, for a student, are good. There is no rationale for striking in this stituation except for greed.

Collective bargaining agreement

Tuesday, 16 February 2010

Wages Moderately Frozen

I may owe Greg Selinger an apology. I joked earlier about his "moderate" approach to dealing with a budget deficit, including restricting union raises to only three times the rate of inflation. However, it appears as though the government has taken a more aggressive line in proposing a two year wage freeze for public sector unionized employees. Yes.... even the nurses.

This will be quite a shock to the nurses, who two years ago negotiated a contract that gave them a 10% increase over two years plus guaranteed them the forth highest wages in Canada.

It will be interesting to see this play out. Will Selinger have the fortitude to stand his ground against fierce opposition from his loyal union voter base, or will he cave in and cut a generous deal with the unions to keep them happy and guarantee their support in the next election? If they stand their ground, how will the opposition react? That could put McFadyen in a very awkward position of either acknowledging the fiscal responsibility of the government, or maybe further abandoning their conservative ideology by standing up for the unions against a reckless wage freeze, in a futile attempt to capture new support. I can't see that happening, actually, but I am curious to see what they will do.

I think there is method to the madness though. I suspect that in the negotiations with the union leaders behind closed doors will go something like this: "Look, this is just a two year freeze. You sign this and help us get another majority government in 2011, and you will not regret it. I predict 2012 will be a very good year for you." wink wink.

It's interesting at how the government is going about this: with minister Wowchuck taking the message directly to the media, as though it were a trial balloon of some sort. If it doesn't float, Selinger will throw Rosanne under the bus and claim it was just an unfortunate side effect of her hormone replacement therapy -- that he never intended to have a wage freeze.

However, if Selinger and Wowchuck can actually convince the unions to buy into this, with a potential reward two years down the road, that will really put the other parties in a bit of a pickle when it comes to differentiating themselves and grabbing those middle voters who don't really pay close attention to anything, but have vague notions about fiscal responsibility.

Thursday, 6 March 2008

Don't get sick: strike looming

There was an odd little article in the Freep today:

The province issued a warning to doctors and hospitals this week to do what they can to reduce the number of patients in beds or requiring surgery in the event contact talks with Manitoba nurses break down ... as a precaution to ensure patient safety.

You can do your part too: if you were planning a heart attack or brain aneurism for next week, you might want to post pone it ... to ensure your safety.

So what's with this work action? Is this just a natural part of the nurses union's four-year menstral cycle? Actually ... it's all about the money:

Maureen Hancharyk, president of the Manitoba Nurses Union, said the province is not offering nurses a competitive wage and new graduates are being swayed by higher pay and better benefits from other provinces like Saskatchewan.

..

Terry Goertzen, assistant deputy minister for Manitoba Health workforce, said the province has offered nurses a 9.6 per cent pay increase over two years and that Manitoba nurses have the fourth highest wages in the country. Hancharyk said that's not competitive enough and that Manitoba nurses are actually sixth in the country in terms of pay [link]
What? A raise of only twice the rate of inflation? That's not right ... And gosh darnit, our nurses deserve to be the highest paid in the country, even if our cost of living is higher than only 3 other provinces.


I don't know if you picked up on the sarcasm or not, but what I'm trying to say is our health care expenses are spiraling out of control (at what, 40+% of the provincial budget now? I'm too lazy to look it up) and over-paying our nurses isn't helping. What might help is not spending money on crap like this:



..

But what about the staff shortage, and our poor over-worked nurses? I'll leave it to the Black Rod to explain that one.

h/t: PITT

 
/* Google Tracker Code