|
On May 24 2017 04:23 opisska wrote:
Fair enough. But it is a long stretch to deduce from that that government is inherently inefficient. Seems to me that your proposed privatization of government functions would lead to exactly the same opposition than the simple reform of the system for parity in labor conditions (or even harsher), so why not try the less dramatic thing first?
How would "parity in labor conditions" be achieved? The reason government unions are so powerful is that the government is immune to standard competitive pressure. It's not actually about it being "government" but about it being a monopoly. Companies that lack free competitive environments (airlines, car companies, etc.) often look quite similar e.g. lower efficiency, more powerful unions. Companies in free markets, if they are weakened by unions, simply cease to exist and are replaced by companies that are more efficient.
You can't just wave a wand and have wages etc. be "fair"... you actually have to set up systems that achieve what you want.
(Side note: I very much do think we need to raise taxes and increase infrastructure funding... I just recognize that there's always gonna be some level of inefficiency in unfree market environments. Sometimes inefficiency is the price you pay to have something done for the benefit of all, which is the whole idea behind government.)
|
On May 24 2017 05:01 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 04:23 opisska wrote:
Fair enough. But it is a long stretch to deduce from that that government is inherently inefficient. Seems to me that your proposed privatization of government functions would lead to exactly the same opposition than the simple reform of the system for parity in labor conditions (or even harsher), so why not try the less dramatic thing first? How would "parity in labor conditions" be achieved? The reason government unions are so powerful is that the government is immune to standard competitive pressure. It's not actually about it being "government" but about it being a monopoly. Companies that lack free competitive environments (airlines, car companies, etc.) often look quite similar e.g. lower efficiency, more powerful unions. Companies in free markets, if they are weakened by unions, simply cease to exist and are replaced by companies that are more efficient. You can't just wave a wand and have wages etc. be "fair"... you actually have to set up systems that achieve what you want. (Side note: I very much do think we need to raise taxes and increase infrastructure funding... I just recognize that there's always gonna be some level of inefficiency in unfree market environments. Sometimes inefficiency is the price you pay to have something done for the benefit of all, which is the whole idea behind government.)
You can limit the union's powers by law, or impose by law the same conditions that the unions got for their workers, but for everyone. These are two basic options, you can also find a middle ground anywhere inbetween. The lack of competitive pressure also goes really nicely both ways: the government employees really don't have anywhere else to go, so the state is in a better position to deal with the unions than a private company.
|
|
|
On May 24 2017 05:06 JimmiC wrote:
Unions basically are not needed anymore in the west. They just cause problems. when they were first set up to achieve things like safety, weekends and so on it was needed but now it is legislated.
The other odd factor with unions is the golden handcuff situation. Oddly enough everyone wants in because of pay but everyone in hates it. It is just that they can't get out because they can't find comparable pay based on education and education. (of course this is a generalization I'm sure there are some happy unions.)
You think we live in a golden age where countries no longer try to exploit their workers?
Sure the stakes are less because of safety regulations and vacation laws but companies will always try to nickel and dime their workers.
Unions, if acting properly, give workers a collective bargaining right they cannot match when working individually.
|
There is some pretty solid evidence that unions are badly needed in the US. 30 years of stagnating wages, growing wealth inequality, the growth of contract workers rather than full time employment. The national dislike of Unions has been calculated effort by business owners to diminish their value. Rather than taking the argument that workers don’t deserve the pay or benefits, they have adopted the new tactic of saying they are getting things non-union workers don’t get. Rather than fight working class people directly, they push that working class people should fight each other.
|
|
|
On May 24 2017 06:05 JimmiC wrote:
Unions don't help that disparity because they are not global if the labor gets to expensive the companies just move shop.
I do think that there are some countries that need unions. I just think Canada is not one of them. And communism is a great political system if working correctly it just doesn't happen.
I’m glad we did the full leap from unions, to communism. The pro-business talking points from the 1920s never die. We even have the “we will talk our ball and leave with it” talking point. And companies don’t just get up a leave. If that was true, all of Ford would have left. They didn’t. The same with a lot of other unionized industries. Cashiers for super markets in the US are unionized in many states, including mine. Market Basket employees function as a lose union.
I don’t think you are wrong that a poorly managed union can be harmful. But most of the arguments you are pointing forth are ones used by businesses to claim that unions will be harmful to the state/city they are in. It is an attempt to turn the general population against the workers trying to unionize. And businesses never have their workers best interest in mind by default.
|
On May 24 2017 06:15 bardtown wrote:
Sorry for the off topic but your signature triggers me. I don't even need to see it, just your name to be reminded of it. Change pls.
Is it really that bad?
Poll: Is my signature acceptable?Yes (6) 86% No (1) 14% 7 total votes Your vote: Is my signature acceptable? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
|
That's an interesting associative conditioning bardtown.
|
|
|
|
|
On May 24 2017 06:05 JimmiC wrote:
Unions don't help that disparity because they are not global if the labor gets to expensive the companies just move shop.
I do think that there are some countries that need unions. I just think Canada is not one of them. And communism is a great political system if working correctly it just doesn't happen.
Well, here in BC our Teacher's Union spent about a decade in court fighting for the right to negotiate classroom sizes, despite winning at every level. And there's no way in hell that they could have fought this without a union.
Now, I don't agree with a lot of things associated with our teacher's union, but there are still plenty of things that require some collective strength to achieve. And there are plenty of jobs that can't be outsourced anywhere.
|
People get triggered by the weirdest things.
|
On May 24 2017 07:11 Acrofales wrote:People get triggered by the weirdest things.
The internet is deeply stupid.
|
Canada11355 Posts
Why does daylight savings time exist?
For that matter why do timezones exist? Is it really so important for 13:00 to be daytime no matter where you are?
|
On May 24 2017 07:26 Fecalfeast wrote:
Why does daylight savings time exist?
For that matter why do timezones exist? Is it really so important for 13:00 to be daytime no matter where you are? Traditionally farmers want to normalise waking hours with market hours. Yes it is important because how else would railways and long distance telegraphs work effectively and the whole of modern society would operate? It wasn't as important before industrialisation.
|
|
|
On May 24 2017 07:26 Fecalfeast wrote:
Why does daylight savings time exist?
For that matter why do timezones exist? Is it really so important for 13:00 to be daytime no matter where you are?
Technically neither is not required, daylight savings has to do with when its light (aka waking/working hours). Russia actually ran a test recently with not having daylight savings and from what I read it was not a success.
Timezones are just convenient, instead of having to look up corresponding day/night cycle at X part of the world I can look up the time and know the relation to working hours, lunch, dinner times ect.
For internet use timezones and daylight savings are a bother but for actually business its more convenient then the alternative.
|
On May 24 2017 07:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:26 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:05 JimmiC wrote:
Unions don't help that disparity because they are not global if the labor gets to expensive the companies just move shop.
I do think that there are some countries that need unions. I just think Canada is not one of them. And communism is a great political system if working correctly it just doesn't happen. I’m glad we did the full leap from unions, to communism. The pro-business talking points from the 1920s never die. We even have the “we will talk our ball and leave with it” talking point. And companies don’t just get up a leave. If that was true, all of Ford would have left. They didn’t. The same with a lot of other unionized industries. Cashiers for super markets in the US are unionized in many states, including mine. Market Basket employees function as a lose union. I don’t think you are wrong that a poorly managed union can be harmful. But most of the arguments you are pointing forth are ones used by businesses to claim that unions will be harmful to the state/city they are in. It is an attempt to turn the general population against the workers trying to unionize. And businesses never have their workers best interest in mind by default. I wasn't saying unions and communism are the same thing, I was simply using the biggest example of something that works great on paper and not in practice. Maybe unions just need an expiry date, because when first formed they seem to do good work but then once they are around and too big and powerful they do more harm then good. Interesting about the Teachers in B.C., (For context my wife is a teacher, so is my sister and both my parents were) In Alberta in the early 80's Teachers striked for smaller class sizes. In the early 2000's they gave it up for $$$. Now they make great money but don't have the teacher to student ratio they would prefer or the right number of supports. They do however have a crazy amount of management ABOVE the principal. Each district has 50-100 staff all unique for each district all making huge coin. I'm not saying its a black and white issue like Unions are completely bad or good. But I think the bad sides out way the good. Do you know what it takes to fire a teacher in Canada? Basically it is impossible without a criminal offense. Meaning there is a shit ton of terrible teachers, who don't give a shit making the exact same money, pension and so on as the great teachers. They are also teaching our kids. I can see why some would see unions as more good then bad, especially in dangerous jobs and corrupt countries. But in the middle class area I live in, where union jobs are the safest and pay the best and have pensions. It doens't make sense. You should be giving up some pay for security and vice versa. OR the people in those jobs should be the best of the best. Not the guy who's been there the longest. Nothing kills moral in a union like seniority. Why work hard just age your way into promotion! I've always wondered if you could some how have the government unions work like sports unions. There is no way in the NHL you would be like sorry McDavid, it's your second year you will not play on the powerplay or see 1st line minutes. Or sorry lebron (he's old enough now but I'm trying to use examples non sports fan may have heard of.) you have to ride the pine for 5 years before you can see the court.
You live in Canada, with a social safety net, health care and I assume acceptable wages. The US, also part of the western world, does not have those things. It are a garbage nation that can't figure out how to stop exploiting the poor and blaming it on other poor people for wanting to be less poor. So Canada may have a robust union system that does not need to grow. Ours is fighting to stay alive.
|
I like daylight saving time because it, uhh.., saves daylight time? In summer without daylight saving time, maybe the sun rises at 4.30 and sets at 7.30. most people wake up well after 4.30 and stay up long after 7.30, so by applying daylight saving time we lose less daylight time sleeping. We get less light when we sleep early morning, and more light in the evening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
