John Horgan's salad menu

[flamingfingers]

^^If it's a 'rat union' like CLAC, certainly!!

[rustled]

So it sounds like if certain key people don't like the way a union is formed and the way it operates and the way it doesn't seem to properly represent the workers it is supposed to represent, it is a rat union. Label and dismiss so you don't have to play fair with the unions you don't like.

But by these standards, the BCTF is a rat union. Given the choice between doing what's best for their membership and doing what's better for the BCTF, they choose the BCTF every time. Oh, were you about to protest, the BCTF doesn't even try to get along with the employer, so they're not a rat union? Interesting. Okay, weasel union will do.

Hey: If we don't like the way a government is formed and the way it operates and the way it doesn't seem to properly represent the people it is supposed to represent, can we call it a rat government? A weasel government? How about a mouse government? Point being: Can we label and dismiss them too? Please?

[hobbyguy]

^^^From the comments:

CLAC has never been affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress(CLC). CLAC was kicked out of the International Trade Union Confederation(ITUC) for operating as a company union(rat union). CLAC is the preferred barganing agent for corporatations, because they are a company union which represents the interests of a company, and have no associations or affiliations with other unions or labour organizations. CLAC is not a union.

http://www.caw.ca/assets/images/ITUCLtr ... 0_2011.pdf

The CLAC happens to take a cooperative approach and look for the win-win overlaps. That is very attractive to many workers - which is part of the reason the CLAC is growing, while the old thug unions are dying on vine.

Not surprised that the petty crook "sticky fingers" Horgan is in bed with the thug unions.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/04/23/construction_union_linked_to_firm_with_alleged_mafia_ties.html

[fluffy]

The CLAC happens to take a cooperative approach and look for the win-win overlaps. That is very attractive to many workers - which is part of the reason the CLAC is growing, while the old thug unions are dying on vine.

That is the face CLAC likes to present to the general public but the truth is that they are as far to one end of the spectrum as the so-called “thug” unions are to the other. The fact that they have been denied membership or had their membership revoked in recognized organized labour umbrella groups pretty much tells the story. Stories of lack of worker representation on CLAC sites are plentiful, they are a union in name only, a sham union.

That being said, unionized labour has played a huge part in bringing about their own demise in the private sector. Overly generous wage and benefit packages are proving unsustainable in today’s economy, and the political climate has changed such that replacing union labour with their cheaper non-union counterparts no longer carries the stigma it once did. Too many years of “us against them” have hurt unions’ public image to the point where they are pretty much on their own. Private sector unionization rates have gone from over thirty percent to less than twenty in the past decades, and any change in that trend has yet to become evident. Overall unionization rates range from static to slightly increasing if you count government unions.

[hobbyguy]

^^ you are correct, the old thug unions are responsible for their own demise.

The sad part is the wage/benefit issues are not necessarily a big deal if the rest of the contract is modernized. The problem is that the thug unions won't change anything because it is of no benefit to the brass personally, and they would have to do a bunch of actual work - some of which might be controversial and affect votes to maintain their cushy big $$ jobs.

I have mentioned it before, in negotiating a contract for a struggling operation I was able to convince them to modernize the contract, in part because they were expecting a demand for wage/benefit cuts - which we did not ask for. The real key was addressing the seniority clause issues, and doing so in a way that would not affect basic seniority rights or result in individual wage reductions.

We did manage to negotiate it out so that within reason, employees were assigned work that best matched their talents, even if on the previous classification wage scale that would have meant lower pay. Workers were always paid the wage commensurate with what they were qualified to do, not what they were actually doing. Opportunities for workers to upgrade their skills were increased dramatically, and incentives provided in terms of a wage scale that paid better the more the you were qualified to do.

It meant that the overall wage/benefit package actually went up, but solved the struggles of the operation because of a few factors, but mostly because of flexibility.

If Fred was a mediocre machine operator but a great forklift operator, then most times Fred would run the forklift, and Sally, who was a mediocre forklift operator but a good machine operator would run that machine. Or if Fred the forklift operator was sick, Sally the machine operator would go run the forklift. Those kinds of things where everyone worked as a team. (If Fred was adamant that he had seniority, and wanted to run the machine, then generally that's what Fred did - but there was not much of that, because generally folks like to do what they are really good at.)

Productivity jumped, and kept growing. The workers were top paid for the industry, had top benefits, and the company saw a losing operation turn into a top profit making operation. Win-win.

Part of the resistance from the union itself was that this model contradicted the "agreement template" they were using throughout North America. Therein lies the biggest problem with the old dinosaur unions. They have "one size fits all" answers that wind up not fitting anyone very well - and they don't like to adjust at all. That's like going to a car dealer and being told "No, you can't have a blue one. We only make trucks with brown paint."

The CLAC ain't perfect - but they are less imperfect that the old thug unions that make up the CLC.

I observe the same kind of mentality with the BC NDP. They have a flawed ideology (all ideologies either are or become flawed over time) from another time (1961 - the combination of the CCF and CLC) - and by gum they gonna stick with it! That's why we saw the BC NDP throw many million$ away on Ocean Falls. That's why we saw the BC NDP throw million$ away on Skeena Cellulose. That's why we are seeing the BC NDP throwing many million$ and maybe billion$ at the CLC member dinosaur unions. It comes around every time the BC NDP get elected, and it has come around this time even though they were not elected.

1961 was a far different time than today, and trying to impose 1961 "one size fits all" solutions from 1961 will always be a failure. That's what "sticky fingers" Horgan is trying to do with his list of approved unions in a closed shop - only worse, because he is rewarding his select few cronies for failing to modernize at all.

[Gone_Fishin]

A Construction Cost Consultant Looks at John Horgan’s Out-of-Date Labour Deal


Regarding Horgan’s ‘union-only’ plan: as a general guide, anytime a client restricts supply, the price increases. The government’s new restrictions go way beyond ‘union-only’: they almost nationalize the workforce. This will have a huge negative impact on construction cost: inflexibility = higher cost is an established fact in the industry.

For the potential cost impact, I can only give you my ‘gut feeling’ based on my experience with similar policies in the 90ies. I suggest that you plan for an increase of 10% to 20% on all projects affected by this policy. The actual increase will vary on a project by project basis.. For the Pattullo Bridge, I suggest that you pencil in an increased budget – say a range of $1.5 to $2 billion for now based on the assumption that the old budget of $1.4 billion was doable under the old rules – often a rash assumption with high-profile public projects.

Implementation will be important. If poorly implemented, this could result in high volatility in bid prices. Poor bid responses for the affected projects could result in project delays, re-bidding and even mothballing of much needed projects.

Over a three year period, this policy, depending on the scope and implementation, could absorb one to three billion dollars of the government’s capital funds. There is a high risk that this amount could increase dramatically due to current heated market conditions, poor implementation or a negative response from non-union contractors. It is a policy with a very high cost risk.

Taxpayers will have to open the funding floodgates and pour extra money into these projects or the system will seize up. Those involved in maintaining capital budgets are in for some sleepless nights: it will make every project to which it applies instantly over budget and they will not have a clue how to arrive at the right budget because it is a new and untried policy for most contractors. This is how the construction market works: new and untested = uncertainty = higher cost risk = higher bid prices.

The cost of these projects will not be based on competitive market prices as the term is commonly understood in the construction industry. It will be ‘Fake Competition’. The defenestration of this mainstay of cost management could have unintended cost consequences: out-of-control costs could be in the cards. Since contractors base their estimates on historical data of their work crews’ productivity on previous projects, this unknowable new system will result in a: ‘roulette wheel’ method of estimating’.

https://www.icbaindependent.ca/2018/08/ ... bour-deal/

[burnedatstake]

what a crock. by competitive market prices - do they mean fantasy? we all saw what pricing fiascos there were under the liberals. they all ended up being numbers that were totally different than the "competitive market" ones that were on paper to sell to the public. the liberal numbers were so useless that christy in her hail mary scare tactics (while they were losing power) was throwing numbers around about bc hydro like she just learned to count. do us all a favor and take a break from your lies and fantasies.

[Gone_Fishin]

what a crock. by competitive market prices - do they mean fantasy? we all saw what pricing fiascos there were under the liberals. they all ended up being numbers that were totally different than the "competitive market" ones that were on paper to sell to the public. the liberal numbers were so useless that christy in her hail mary scare tactics (while they were losing power) was throwing numbers around about bc hydro like she just learned to count. do us all a favor and take a break from your lies and fantasies.

I'm sure your business experience far outweighs Mr Walsh's 40 years of working in construction project costing. We should certainly listen to you and dismiss anything he has to say. Tell us all about your experience with construction project costing and how Horgan's union payoff is going to be so much better than what Mr Walsh's analysis indicates.

[flamingfingers]

Interesting verbiage - "Mr. Walsh has practiced..." What? After 40 years he is not an 'expert"????

ICBA is a consortium of business contractors which tells you about all you need to know. They are in it for their own fat pockets - not for the workers' benefits.

[Jflem1983]

Interesting verbiage - "Mr. Walsh has practiced..." What? After 40 years he is not an 'expert"????

ICBA is a consortium of business contractors which tells you about all you need to know. They are in it for their own fat pockets - not for the workers' benefits.

Please list any companies you know of that are all for the workers benefits. Gotta get me a job with one of them

[Gone_Fishin]

Interesting verbiage - "Mr. Walsh has practiced..." What? After 40 years he is not an 'expert"????

ICBA is a consortium of business contractors which tells you about all you need to know. They are in it for their own fat pockets - not for the workers' benefits.

What an asinine statement. What's YOUR expertise in construction project costing? Please share, since you feel so qualified to comment on Mr Walsh's shortcomings in this area.

[mikest2]

Interesting verbiage - "Mr. Walsh has practiced..." What? After 40 years he is not an 'expert"????

ICBA is a consortium of business contractors which tells you about all you need to know. They are in it for their own fat pockets - not for the workers' benefits.

I know this is a little far out in left field for you, but Companies need to make a profit in order to operate and provide jobs.

[Gone_Fishin]

Interesting verbiage - "Mr. Walsh has practiced..." What? After 40 years he is not an 'expert"????

ICBA is a consortium of business contractors which tells you about all you need to know. They are in it for their own fat pockets - not for the workers' benefits.

I know this is a little far out in left field for you, but Companies need to make a profit in order to operate and provide jobs.

It's the NDP we're dealing with here, Mike. FF and Horgan are looking forward to idealistic days where everyone works for state-owned production facilities.

[fluffy]

There is a valid point in there though. There was once a time when employers bore a responsibility to their employees that went beyond a simple pay cheque. Those days are slipping away. Things like pensions and benefit packages are becoming rarer in the private sector. I get the need for any business to draw a profit but when you start looking at things like seven digit executive salaries and huge performance bonuses paid out when employees are just scraping by some serious ethical questions arise.

[Gone_Fishin]

There is a valid point in there though. There was once a time when employers bore a responsibility to their employees that went beyond a simple pay cheque. Those days are slipping away. Things like pensions and benefit packages are becoming rarer in the private sector. I get the need for any business to draw a profit but when you start looking at things like seven digit executive salaries and huge performance bonuses paid out when employees are just scraping by some serious ethical questions arise.

You are 100% incorrect. Employers are offering more and more to attract and retain employees with the labour shortages we're experiencing. You can wax poetic about the days of old, but the days of old sucked for employees compared to current offerings. Work/life balance, programs to attract millennials, memberships, shorter work days, enhanced pensions and benefits - the list goes on and on. Stack on the ever-increasing requirements of legislation, and workers are squarely in the driver's seat.