BC Election issues

[hobbyguy]

Hurtlander, I do not espouse an anti-union position.

There is a distinction between unions and die hard unionists.

Typical die hard unionist positions:

1. All companies are cheap %&**#
2. Companies always understate their profits (despite audited financial statements).
3. All management are stoopid and they are #@%$$
4. Overtime should not be worked - the government takes it all anyway.
5. Stealing company tools isn't stealing.

My favorite story about a die hard unionist shop steward:

He always figured I was a low form of life, somewhere around the level of slime mold. The company were cheap so and so's and management were just toads. I said to him one day that if he was so smart, why didn't he start his own business. About six months later he did (and quit his union job - yay!). He paid his employees minimum wage, and went bankrupt inside of two years.

On the flip side I worked with some very professional union reps and shop stewards. They held management "feet to the fire" and worked hard to get the best deal and working conditions possible for the employees. Good for them! There was always some tension, but we had mutual respect, and were able to strike the optimum balance that allowed both the company and the employees to prosper.

What I see with the BC NDP is that die hard unionist stance. Nothing the government (management) does is right, there is lots of money to pay for anything you want, and all companies are Scrooge McDuck (some are, but a lot aren't). It is a "some dogs have spots, therefore all dogs have spots" type of thinking.

[mr.bandaid]

Hurtlander, I do not espouse an anti-union position.

There is a distinction between unions and die hard unionists.

Typical die hard unionist positions:

1. All companies are cheap %&**#
2. Companies always understate their profits (despite audited financial statements).
3. All management are stoopid and they are #@%$$
4. Overtime should not be worked - the government takes it all anyway.
5. Stealing company tools isn't stealing.

My favorite story about a die hard unionist shop steward:

He always figured I was a low form of life, somewhere around the level of slime mold. The company were cheap so and so's and management were just toads. I said to him one day that if he was so smart, why didn't he start his own business. About six months later he did (and quit his union job - yay!). He paid his employees minimum wage, and went bankrupt inside of two years.

On the flip side I worked with some very professional union reps and shop stewards. They held management "feet to the fire" and worked hard to get the best deal and working conditions possible for the employees. Good for them! There was always some tension, but we had mutual respect, and were able to strike the optimum balance that allowed both the company and the employees to prosper.

What I see with the BC NDP is that die hard unionist stance. Nothing the government (management) does is right, there is lots of money to pay for anything you want, and all companies are Scrooge McDuck (some are, but a lot aren't). It is a "some dogs have spots, therefore all dogs have spots" type of thinking.

I'll let you have this one as painting all union members and all unions with the same brush is your thing. I have a completely different view built on personal experience and that being said, unions have lost their way. I have never felt anything but ripped off by the union I belonged to for 35 years. They only good thing they did was invest some of my money in a union bridging fund for retirement. The rest of the time they just turtled and let government do whatever they wanted with them to the point where they have all but bust the APBC CUPE 873 local.

[The Green Barbarian]

Sadly I can not disagree more. I've been in meetings with union reps and without, believe me the difference is astounding.

And sadly I cannot disagree more, having seen the difference between union environments and non-union environments. The productivity difference is astounding. If you are in a government setting, it may be a different situation, where performance metrics are judged differently.

[maryjane48]

without unions we all be working for slave wages . im hopefull unions will come back in force if ndp wins . im open to getting rid of govt unions as long as contracts are collective and voted on .

[Rwede]

And sadly I cannot disagree more, having seen the difference between union environments and non-union environments. The productivity difference is astounding. If you are in a government setting, it may be a different situation, where performance metrics are judged differently.

True dat. Determination of top performers in public sector unions is at the lower end of the scale of reality.

[mr.bandaid]

Sadly I can not disagree more. I've been in meetings with union reps and without, believe me the difference is astounding.

And sadly I cannot disagree more, having seen the difference between union environments and non-union environments. The productivity difference is astounding. If you are in a government setting, it may be a different situation, where performance metrics are judged differently.

I've worked in both as well and to say that the union worker is the only lazy f&^% out there is wrong. You have people who make it a sport to do as little as they can. The biggest problems with unions is that they rise only to the lowest common denominator.

[BeingHuman]

What? Another investigation into the BC Liberal Party? Say it ain't so! Typical Lib - Cons, can't do anything that's ethically right!!!!

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/br ... e35082070/

[The Green Barbarian]

without unions we all be working for slave wages . .

Wait, all I'm told by misguided leftists is that we all work for slave wages and it's Christy Clark's fault (it used to be Harper's fault). So you are saying we are all currently well and fairly paid? Interesting. I never thought that you would admit this.

[Queen K]

Sadly I can not disagree more. I've been in meetings with union reps and without, believe me the difference is astounding.

And sadly I cannot disagree more, having seen the difference between union environments and non-union environments. The productivity difference is astounding. If you are in a government setting, it may be a different situation, where performance metrics are judged differently.

I did not speak of productivity and in what I do, there is no scale of productivity or widgets being turned. It's quite a different type of work than you are accustomed to, Rwede, I include you in that statement. If the "you" is personal, then yes, and quite differently. It's tough to measure what over 280 people do per day plus support staff. Let's just say, if a meeting has to be set up to go over a situation, I've been in both, with and without a union rep and the difference is astounding.

[Queen K]

without unions we all be working for slave wages . im hopefull unions will come back in force if ndp wins . im open to getting rid of govt unions as long as contracts are collective and voted on .

I'm positive you do not understand what that would mean for the health care sectors.

[Deean]

!. No more Union or Corporate or foreign country donations! Only Canadians, living in Canada, should be able to contribute to the party of their choice.
2. Get rid of Advantage BC. Tax rebates for loaning mortgage money to foreign people buying up BC real estate is just wrong!!
3. Jobs in BC should go to British Columbians if you can't find anybody qualified, train someone!
ok, I guess thats my gripe for the day!!

[neilsimon]

!. No more Union or Corporate or foreign country donations! Only Canadians, living in Canada, should be able to contribute to the party of their choice.

Personally, I'd prefer to see it so that the parties are funded by the Province and donations of all sorts are eliminated. Prevents a party just representing the wealthier BC voters

2. Get rid of Advantage BC. Tax rebates for loaning mortgage money to foreign people buying up BC real estate is just wrong!!
3. Jobs in BC should go to British Columbians if you can't find anybody qualified, train someone!
ok, I guess thats my gripe for the day!!

On that last point, BC would suffer terribly due to lack of available talent. Do you think you can train someone to equal 20+ years of experience within a year or two (the longest any business could reasonably wait)? Businesses, especially start-ups, high-tech, and niche, will just move elsewhere. This would be effectively cutting off our nose to spite our face.

[hobbyguy]

bandaid - did you read my post? Methinks not.

I was showing a differential between diehard unionists and unions in general.

Read my flip side paragraph.

It is not "some dogs have spots, therefore all dogs have spots".

I worked very hard during my career to form partnerships between the companies, unions and employees. Essentially trying to adopt the "best practices" from the German approach to unions. It was a lot of work, but the rewards were beneficial to all.

Diehard unionists were impossible to convince that such partnerships were beneficial. They always failed to see the long term and the mutual goals. They fought mutually beneficial changes.

The classic was the introduction of dramatically reduced number of job classifications and flexibility of work assignments in exchange for higher pay/benefits for the employees. Pay the employees for what they know how to do, provide a training platform to expand what they know how to do, and allow for employees to do multiple tasks and different tasks without "breaking the rules". The package directly compensated the employees for the improved productivity. The company was more profitable despite paying the employees more (it drove the bean counters crazy - pay the employees more and profits go up??? - huh? Calculator says impossible!).

In a weird sort of way, the diehard unionists and the bean counters that treated employees as numbers were on the same side against that concept. In the real world it worked.

In that example, you can see that I put diehard unionists in the same pot as bean counters who treat employees as numbers. In my view neither are laudable. Diehard unionists corrupt the union concept, just as diehard bean counters corrupt the practice of management.

So I am not against unions, but I am against diehard unionists who corrupt the real purpose of unions - which is to provide a counterbalance in the labor markets. Neither am I against management, but I am against diehard bean counters who treat employees as numbers and corrupt the real practice of management.

[mr.bandaid]

bandaid - did you read my post? Methinks not.

I was showing a differential between diehard unionists and unions in general.

Read my flip side paragraph.

It is not "some dogs have spots, therefore all dogs have spots".

I worked very hard during my career to form partnerships between the companies, unions and employees. Essentially trying to adopt the "best practices" from the German approach to unions. It was a lot of work, but the rewards were beneficial to all.

Diehard unionists were impossible to convince that such partnerships were beneficial. They always failed to see the long term and the mutual goals. They fought mutually beneficial changes.

The classic was the introduction of dramatically reduced number of job classifications and flexibility of work assignments in exchange for higher pay/benefits for the employees. Pay the employees for what they know how to do, provide a training platform to expand what they know how to do, and allow for employees to do multiple tasks and different tasks without "breaking the rules". The package directly compensated the employees for the improved productivity. The company was more profitable despite paying the employees more (it drove the bean counters crazy - pay the employees more and profits go up??? - huh? Calculator says impossible!).

In a weird sort of way, the diehard unionists and the bean counters that treated employees as numbers were on the same side against that concept. In the real world it worked.

In that example, you can see that I put diehard unionists in the same pot as bean counters who treat employees as numbers. In my view neither are laudable. Diehard unionists corrupt the union concept, just as diehard bean counters corrupt the practice of management.

So I am not against unions, but I am against diehard unionists who corrupt the real purpose of unions - which is to provide a counterbalance in the labor markets. Neither am I against management, but I am against diehard bean counters who treat employees as numbers and corrupt the real practice of management.

I am just glad I am retired and no longer have to be a part of either of the sides. Unions probably wouldn't exist if not for die hard bean counters.

[The Green Barbarian]

Personally, I'd prefer to see it so that the parties are funded by the Province and donations of all sorts are eliminated. Prevents a party just representing the wealthier BC voters

But who decides what constitutes a party that then gets funding? Under your model, every crack-pot with an axe to grind and every lunatic who wants to get BC "off of oil" could start a party, get funding and now have a source of income they didn't have before, that would supplement their welfare income. So in other words, totally open to abuse by losers. Cutting off funding from unions at least prevents a party like the NDP from just representing disgusting self-interested unions who want to go back to the glory days of 1998 and sleaze-bag back-room deals with the NDP.