02-06-2012, 03:52 PM
What was not stated is that the Canadian government gave large subsidies and tax incentives to Caterpillar to ensure that the plant remained in operation. Caterpillar had no compunction about accepting such largesse, then scurrying back to their U.S. operation. Also not stated was the fact that Caterpillar's only offer was a 50% reduction in wages and the removal of many benefits, followed by a lock-out of employees, despite the fact the the company made record profits last year, much of which was generated at this plant.
I don't know where you work or what the nature of your employment is, but many of your benefits, both financial and those related to your working conditions, are directly thanks to pressures exerted by unions, whether or not you are a unionised employee. While many non-union workers decry union demands (which I agree may, at times, be unreasonable) few realise that hours of work, vacation standards, medical benefits, and safety standards are directly tied to sacrifices made by union members in one industry or another. Would you be willing to accept, without chance of negotiation, a 50% wage cut? Or would you, if given the opportunity, not attempt to better your working conditions or improve your standard of living?
Yes, unions have their share of non-productive and/or troublesome members, and they are, in my experience, as disliked and unwanted as they would be anywhere else.
Many of the first unions, not surprisingly, were in industries where conditions were so appalling that you cannot imagine them. I worked in the steel industry for almost 40 years, and had no choice but to join a union if I wished to work there, as was the situation in most of the heavy industry at that time. I didn't see a lot of use for the union in my day-to-day work, but saw plenty of use for it when contract time rolled around, as the company, as "greedy" as the union, wanted to give nothing and take back as much as they could. Whatever was won (or not) was achieved because the two sides negotiated an agreement. Caterpillar had no intention of anything but sloughing off their responsibilities.
I can give you examples of why I made good money during those years, too, working three shifts, often with split days-off and usually with those days-off being mid-week. You would not believe the noise, the dirt, extremes of temperature and the danger embodied in heavy industry, and I have seen several new hires simply take a look around and never return. If no one came in for the next shift who could do my job, I was required to stay - yeah, I got overtime, but I also missed out on a lot of important things at home, too. I worked on holidays, including Christmas, and got my vacation when it was convenient for the company, not when my kids were on vacation from school. I saw several people killed, too, but I also saw the changes which were made, often only after insistence by the union, that prevented further similar incidents.
Within the current economic situation, yes, unions need to temper their demands. However, you, or any other person who expects the government or business to come to your rescue, either with regards to employment, safety standards, or benefits, will have a very rude awakening. The government doesn't care (nor, in my opinion, should they) and neither does big business, and the bigger both become, the less accountable they will be.
Current Government discussion in Canada involving pensions is centred on Government's role, but the Government, as in most countries, is essentially bankrupt. The only ones with the money to address this concern is big business, and they're not especially interested in doing so. Governments are seemingly powerless (or too disinterested) to apply any regulations which would impede economic growth (keep your eye on who's enjoying the benefits of that one) and we are, in effect, governed by multinational corporations. I have no problem with them making a profit, even huge profits, but I would like to see a return of some sense of responsibility on their part for the situations which they are creating. Obviously, you're not going to be one of the ones standing up for such changes.
And as wages continue to drop across the board, unions or not, who will have the money to buy these products?
Wayne
alpha_1 Wrote:London will survive. Good to see the union busted!
I don't know where you work or what the nature of your employment is, but many of your benefits, both financial and those related to your working conditions, are directly thanks to pressures exerted by unions, whether or not you are a unionised employee. While many non-union workers decry union demands (which I agree may, at times, be unreasonable) few realise that hours of work, vacation standards, medical benefits, and safety standards are directly tied to sacrifices made by union members in one industry or another. Would you be willing to accept, without chance of negotiation, a 50% wage cut? Or would you, if given the opportunity, not attempt to better your working conditions or improve your standard of living?
Yes, unions have their share of non-productive and/or troublesome members, and they are, in my experience, as disliked and unwanted as they would be anywhere else.
Many of the first unions, not surprisingly, were in industries where conditions were so appalling that you cannot imagine them. I worked in the steel industry for almost 40 years, and had no choice but to join a union if I wished to work there, as was the situation in most of the heavy industry at that time. I didn't see a lot of use for the union in my day-to-day work, but saw plenty of use for it when contract time rolled around, as the company, as "greedy" as the union, wanted to give nothing and take back as much as they could. Whatever was won (or not) was achieved because the two sides negotiated an agreement. Caterpillar had no intention of anything but sloughing off their responsibilities.
I can give you examples of why I made good money during those years, too, working three shifts, often with split days-off and usually with those days-off being mid-week. You would not believe the noise, the dirt, extremes of temperature and the danger embodied in heavy industry, and I have seen several new hires simply take a look around and never return. If no one came in for the next shift who could do my job, I was required to stay - yeah, I got overtime, but I also missed out on a lot of important things at home, too. I worked on holidays, including Christmas, and got my vacation when it was convenient for the company, not when my kids were on vacation from school. I saw several people killed, too, but I also saw the changes which were made, often only after insistence by the union, that prevented further similar incidents.
Within the current economic situation, yes, unions need to temper their demands. However, you, or any other person who expects the government or business to come to your rescue, either with regards to employment, safety standards, or benefits, will have a very rude awakening. The government doesn't care (nor, in my opinion, should they) and neither does big business, and the bigger both become, the less accountable they will be.
Current Government discussion in Canada involving pensions is centred on Government's role, but the Government, as in most countries, is essentially bankrupt. The only ones with the money to address this concern is big business, and they're not especially interested in doing so. Governments are seemingly powerless (or too disinterested) to apply any regulations which would impede economic growth (keep your eye on who's enjoying the benefits of that one) and we are, in effect, governed by multinational corporations. I have no problem with them making a profit, even huge profits, but I would like to see a return of some sense of responsibility on their part for the situations which they are creating. Obviously, you're not going to be one of the ones standing up for such changes.
And as wages continue to drop across the board, unions or not, who will have the money to buy these products?
Wayne