Right-to-work legislation

[Bunky]

My partner and I are both in unions with the schoolboard. I feel I am underpaid myself as an Education Program Assistant. I like a lot of things about my union for example having to deal with transfering schools due to environmental issues. If it wasn't for the union i'm pretty sure I wouldn't be getting help from anywhere else.

One issue I have with unions is it's promotion of mediocre workers over better working, more educated staff. I feel can be a good thing, but is ultimately a breeding ground that doesn't take into the account betterment of the work being done but rather who gets up the ladder quicker with no regard to whether the work that is being done is beneficial to the business... factory... school... etc... What is your stance on these types of issues?

What are your feelings about environmental responsibility of government and companies, and how much of a roll government would have in making rules/laws for companies that pollute?

[jd1]

Hi Bunky,

AP, of course, supports Unions. People always have the right of association. It sounds like your union is an advocate for you, but is also an advocate for 'mediocre' employees also, so two sides of the same coin. AP likes right-to-work legislation, where you can opt out of your union and being in the union is not a precondition of employment.

[JKP]

Unions are an unecessary byproduct of a century ago. Their leaders are as over-compensated as the corporate "fat cats" they proceed to criticize for largesse. They destroy productivity, innovation and ability to compete. They are destructive to economies and prosperous business.

This is why union membership is rapidly decreasing in the private sector.

The alarming thing is their unfettered growth in the public sector. This is alarming because unions are very active contributors in the political process. So we end up with politicians with no incentives elected by union money then providing more union dues in pay raises back to union members in exchange for more union support, repeat, repeat, repeat.

Unionized public sector workers are now paid more on average and have ridiculously generous benefits compared to the private sector? Why? Because government has no incentive to contain costs, especially when those costs vote for them.

So, what's AP's thinking on public sector unionization? Aren't those employees protected enough? When do I, as a person who pays their salaries, get to assess the value of the work they do? When do I get to fire some of them for poor productivity? When do I get to promote the most productive of them? Where's the taxpayer's input?

[Bunky]

Unionized public sector workers are now paid more on average and have ridiculously generous benefits compared to the private sector? Why? Because government has no incentive to contain costs, especially when those costs vote for them.

As someone who works in the mental health field, I have to disagree with this statement. Because I don't believe I get paid what I deserve for my work, I have crap for benefits...no paternity leave, 4 personal days a year. I don't work in the summer, and I don't get laid off to collect E.I unlike a lot of trades people who work 3 months and sit back the rest of the year and take in my money.

So I'm wondering which unions your reffering to?

My union has to fight for me to get what I deserve to be paid. In Ontario, apparently people in my line of work get paid 5 dollars more an hour than I do.

[JKP]

Paternity leave? Personal days? Those are benefits that very rarely exist in the private sector, so I'm not sure how that is considered "crap benefits". Perhaps compared to other gold-plated public-sector union jobs.

Here's a summary from a recent National Post commentary:

If the incomes of public sector workers were equal to those in the private sector, fiscal deficits of governments would be lowered by at least $19-billion.

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blog ... rvice.aspx

If you don't believe you're compensated fairly for your skills, find an employer that pays what you're worth based on the value you deliver (meritocracy) versus some arbitrary tenure/seniority based system dictated by a collective bargaining process.

People in Ontario should typically be paid more than you because their cost of living (specifically, housing) is typically higher. People in India are probably making about 5% of what your total wage is for the same work.

People should be paid what the market dictates. Supply and demand and the value that is generated off their labour cost.