Municipal workers strike in Toronto: Part 2

101 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Tue, 2009-06-23 16:35

torontoprofessor

A remark about borderline cases of scabbing.

Borderline cases are important and interesting. (1) They test the limits of our moral views, and force us to clarify exactly what those views are. (2) They reveal that, sometimes, easy answers are not so easy. (3) Sometimes a person finds herself having to deal with a borderline case in real life. The first borderline case brought up in this discussion was Unionist's example, " if you volunteered to take your neighbour's garbage as well (whether paid or unpaid), then I think we might be approaching "scab" territory." And the language Unionist used -- "might be approaching" -- evinces the tentativeness that is appropriate in borderline cases.

Snert's example of looking after a neighbour's child and Ghislaine's example of dealing with trash of a neighbour with mobility issues are also reasonable and interesting examples. I would say this: in borderline cases, even if the action is scabbing, that consideration might be trumped by other equally weighty considerations -- having to do with your neighbours' health or with the safety of their children. We could all imagine cases in which the only way to save a dying child (a trite example, I know) would be to engage in an action that would otherwise be reprehensible. When moral considerations collide like this, a person has to make a judgement call of course, and make a decision (i.e., either to take the neighbour's trash or not to). But, even when one disagrees with someone else's judgement call, I think that one should recognize the difficult mix of moral considerations that might be at stake.

Tue, 2009-06-23 16:52

#53

Stockholm

Cueball wrote:

Well, in my experience, people who are consistently rude and ask deliberately obtuse and insulting disingenuous questions are more likely on average to get assaulted than those that don't.

So how frequently do you get assaulted??

Tue, 2009-06-23 16:59

#54

Stockholm

"Your claims to be "pro labour" remind me very much of that old Phil Ochs song "Love Me I'm a Liberal"."

I try to judge every case on its own merits. I am not an ideologue who just says "don't bother me with facts i have a closed mind - labour is always right and management is always wrong. Period". My bias and personal philosophy is very pro-labour and in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases I will be on the side of the union in a labour dispute. It's never going to be 100% because nobody's perfect nobody's always right - not even organized labour.

I have been reading about the issues in this strike and i'm sorry but in this particular case, I don't find the union's position to be compelling. If someone can convince me otherwise, I'd be grateful because normally i like to be on the side of labour.

Tue, 2009-06-23 17:04

#55

Cueball

It is you are picking this fight, right now, right here with me, when I have said nothing to you here to warrant it.

But now that you mention it, maybe I don't get assaulted because I am very "broad minded" as unionist put it.

Tue, 2009-06-23 18:05

#56

Unionist

What remind said. Every word. Thank you for that.

Tue, 2009-06-23 18:13

#57

Stockholm

Hey, I just thought of something. I'm entitled to maternity leave where I work. I wonder whether I can "bank" all the unused maternity leave I will accumulate over a lifetime of never being pregnant that I can then cash in for a windfall!

Meanwhile, what about how the current system is so horribly unfair to people who through no fault of their own have serious health issues and have to call in sick alot and never get to bank any sick days. Those people get NOTHING when they retire. I suppose one solution would be to just give everyone $20,000 when they retire regardless of whether they have banked sick days or not!! That seems to be the only fair solution.

Let's get one thing straight. This is not a strike against Wall-Mart or some other horrid profiteering private company. This is a strike against a NOT FOR PROFIT progressive municipal government that provides social services and that we all elect. Its also is legally barred from running a deficit and has no simple way of raising revenue since there is no municipal income tax - something has to give because the money will have to come from somewhere. If the City capitulated and gave the union everything they are asking for - the next day, the city would probably have to layoff 10% of the municipal workforce like what's happening in other cities around the world - and that is something that cities are free to do regardless of any contracts negotiated. So choose your poison. and BTW: the City of Toronto also has no control over monetary policy and cannot simply print more money either.

Tue, 2009-06-23 18:14

#58

Stockholm

remind wrote:

You know no one has stated here actual numbers of what banked sick days cost the City of Toronto, for actual numbers, so people can be outraged properly, or not. I for one would like to see them, if only for a compare to see what was saved. A full perspective always helps.

According to the papers, the banked sick days represent a $250 million liability to the city.

Tue, 2009-06-23 18:17

#59

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

According to the papers, the banked sick days represent a $250 million liability to the city.

You don't even understand the concept of a $250 million liability - but your contempt for these workers isn't restrained by facts or logic. You never gave a damn about this issue until the Big Shots decided to take it away - then you hopped on the bandwagon. You should take your pro-Boss propaganda elsewhere.

Tue, 2009-06-23 18:29

#60

Doug

So what is the correct way for a public sector employer to deal with its employees? Just saying yes to whatever the union brings to the table isn't going to happen.

Tue, 2009-06-23 18:30

#61

remind

Cut the BS stock, you are hardened into your position, and you came into this thread in a hardened position, pretending otherwise is insulting, no actually, it is extremely insulting. Just as insulting in fact, as when people insist they are not racist, or sexist, yet every word that comes out of their mouth is just that. No actually, I take that back too, it is more insulting because most often they do not know they are lying to themselves and to the persons they are speaking to, but you do, and it is premeditated even, repeatedly so.

That you are not being pro union and worker in the labour and consumption forum, or even giving any consideration to labours positions on this is just the anti-worker icing, on your capitalist cake.

That your insistent disparaging of these workers is deflecting away from corporate and elite taxpayer money giveways occuring, in the billions more, than the paltry amount here is the cherry on top of your anti-worker sentiment icing and capitalist cake.

Everyone expects us workers, to pay and pay, while the rich pay next to nothing in taxes, and get kickbacks of our tax money, periodically, and some think this is A okay, but yet deny workers their paltry 10 grand, after decades of work, and costs saving in the 100's of thousands over those years of being at work everyday. What a bunch of anti-worker BS.

And that is leaving aside the facts that unionist noted above, regarding this clause, it may well have been initially, a bargining point of management in place of another plan, like short term disability. So in fact, if this is the case, then if the union concedes on this point, they have conceded on 2 points, NO short term disability, and no banked sick days to fall back upon. Or whatever the first concession point was.

And if unions start losing their banked sick days, what will be next paid sick days? Because afterall, no one else gets them? That is false rhetoric, everyone should get them and unions losing that in collective bargining will not help.

People coming into work sick because they can't afford not to, is a real issue and it can only be addressed by paid sick days, and banked sick days for longer term illnesses.

You know no one has stated here actual numbers of what banked sick days cost the City of Toronto, so people can be outraged properly, or not. I for one would like to see them, if only for a compare to see what was saved. A full perspective always helps.

Tue, 2009-06-23 18:31

#62

Stockholm

The "boss" is all of us. This is not Wall-Mart this is the not-for-profit City of Toronto that we elect and rely on for social services.

You know "unionist" you have gone on and on in the past about how those of us who are partisan New Democrats should stop blindly towing the party line and should be willing to engage in some self-criticism of party policies and tactics. Fair enough. But I'd like to know whether you have EVER in your life questioned a policy of strategy of a trade union or are you the organized labour equivalent of a devout Catholic and instead of the Pope being infallible - its that whatever position any union anywhere on the face of the earth takes is ipso-facto infallible? Or can you think of a single solitary example of where you have ever questioned or second-guessed a union position?

Tue, 2009-06-23 18:46

#63

remind

Unionist wrote:
Stockholm wrote:
According to the papers, the banked sick days represent a $250 million liability to the city.

You don't even understand the concept of a $250 million liability - but your contempt for these workers isn't restrained by facts or logic. You never gave a damn about this issue until the Big Shots decided to take it away - then you hopped on the bandwagon. You should take your pro-Boss propaganda elsewhere.

No kidding, and what a way for the papers, or those who leaked said "figures" to them, to skew optics, as many like stock, will not understand what they are reading.

Nor will they understand that workers who are sick cost, in fact, we could say TO city workers who could get sick represent a 500 million dollar liability to the city. So let's get rid of the workers period, as they are too much liability, no matter. :D

Tue, 2009-06-23 18:49

#64

Stockholm

What makes you think the numbers are false. Clearly the liability that these banked sick days represent must be a gigantic amount of money - otherwise why would the city be taking such a hardline about getting rid of them? If it really hardly cost the city anything to provide this benefit - then the path of least resistence for the NDPers who run the city would be to just leave it alone!

Tue, 2009-06-23 19:03

#65

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:
But I'd like to know whether you have EVER in your life questioned a policy of strategy of a trade union or are you the organized labour equivalent of a devout Catholic and instead of the Pope being infallible - its that whatever position any union anywhere on the face of the earth takes is ipso-facto infallible? Or can you think of a single solitary example of where you have ever questioned or second-guessed a union position?

You should spend as much time reading as writing. I told you (if you care to read) that I am opposed to the banking of sick days. I told you that it's often an employer demand aimed at curbing abuse or casual use which doesn't quite amount to abuse. I'm pretty sure you heard me, because you made some typical proworker statement about how abusers should be shot at dawn, I believe, or something to that effect. I also have stated quite clearly, in response to rational comments (such as those of torontoprofessor), that unions which don't communicate the logic of their position can expect to garner no support and fail accordingly.

Unfortunately, the previous paragraph will be lost on you, because even if you read it, you will conveniently forget it in short order. So consider it just a little historical footnote.

Tue, 2009-06-23 19:06

#66

Sineed

Unionist wrote:

What remind said. Every word. Thank you for that.

If you disagree with the reasons a union walked out, does that mean you have to shut up about it or else you're anti-worker?

Edited to add: Whoops! I should have read all the way to the bottom before posting.

Interesting nuance there, unionist.

Tue, 2009-06-23 19:07

#67

remind

Why the City is taking a hard line about them was clearly stated in the previous thread I believe. But I will say union busting and soften people into accepting WMI as the private contractor, for newly privaticized cost savings of course. Though nothing could be further from the truth in actual fact, there is NO cost savings in privatization schemes and pressures.

Tue, 2009-06-23 19:09

#68

Unionist

Sineed wrote:

If you disagree with the reasons a union walked out, does that mean you have to shut up about it or else you're anti-worker?

Certainly not. You should voice your opinions and explain why their reasons are mistaken. You should engage them in debate. But if you take the side of the employer, then you've crossed the line.

I stated my views about Ontario correctional officers' position on sick leave. I took some heat on that. But I supported, unconditionally, their right to fight their battle the way they see fit.

I've stated my views here (although Stockholm conveniently ignores that) about the banking of sick leave. I think it's a terrible idea. But once it has been negotiated, and trade-offs made (they always are), and management comes along and says, "ok, that's gone" - I maintain my views, but I side with the workers.

As for the arguments here that so many people are losing their jobs, and so many people are suffering, and so many non-union folks are without defence, so the workers should back off? That's anti-worker - pure and simple. It is unacceptable. Those are views of people who instinctively look to their very own narrow interest, and don't comprehend that they will not survive two seconds without the labour of those they have so much contempt for.

ETA: Sineed, I see you edited your post while I was speed-typing mine. I'd appreciate your feedback on my response.

Tue, 2009-06-23 19:25

#69

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

It is false to say you support the right to strike when your support is based on whether or not you agree with the demands of the workers - "if the CUPE workers were making reasonable demands, then then I might have been be wiling to allow them to strike, but as I think their demadns are unreasonable bring in the cops" That is what we are talking about in this strike as we were talking about in the TTC stike and in many other strikes, bringing the power of the state down though the legislature the courts and the cops to take away a fundamental right.

Tue, 2009-06-23 20:45

#70

Sineed

Unionist wrote:

Sineed wrote:

If you disagree with the reasons a union walked out, does that mean you have to shut up about it or else you're anti-worker?

Certainly not. You should voice your opinions and explain why their reasons are mistaken. You should engage them in debate. But if you take the side of the employer, then you've crossed the line.

I stated my views about Ontario correctional officers' position on sick leave. I took some heat on that. But I supported, unconditionally, their right to fight their battle the way they see fit.

I've stated my views here (although Stockholm conveniently ignores that) about the banking of sick leave. I think it's a terrible idea. But once it has been negotiated, and trade-offs made (they always are), and management comes along and says, "ok, that's gone" - I maintain my views, but I side with the workers.

As for the arguments here that so many people are losing their jobs, and so many people are suffering, and so many non-union folks are without defence, so the workers should back off? That's anti-worker - pure and simple. It is unacceptable. Those are views of people who instinctively look to their very own narrow interest, and don't comprehend that they will not survive two seconds without the labour of those they have so much contempt for.

ETA: Sineed, I see you edited your post while I was speed-typing mine. I'd appreciate your feedback on my response.

Yes, we kinda cross-posted, and then I read your last post and realized you agreed that banking sick time wasn't a great idea. So basically, you're saying we can quibble over the details all we want, but now that the workers have walked, we need to stand with them.

And I can get on side with that, but unions have a huge PR problem. And if more union people explained it like you do, maybe it wouldn't be so much of a problem.

Tue, 2009-06-23 21:35

#71

Stockholm

"As for the arguments here that so many people are losing their jobs, and so many people are suffering, and so many non-union folks are without defence, so the workers should back off?"

I haven't seen anyone make those arguments here.

Tue, 2009-06-23 22:09

#72

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

"As for the arguments here that so many people are losing their jobs, and so many people are suffering, and so many non-union folks are without defence, so the workers should back off?"

I haven't seen anyone make those arguments here.

Really. You haven't. Oh.

Stockholm favourably citing the G&M wrote:
So it only makes sense for Toronto to control its labour costs, which make up half of its $8.7-billion budget. Cities all over North America are doing it. The president of the Toronto Board of Trade, Carol Wilding, notes that mayors from Chicago to Los Angeles to New York are demanding concessions from city unions, imposing unpaid "furlough" days and laying off thousands of workers. Nothing so draconian is being proposed by Toronto.

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1030141/exactly-what-I-was][color=red]Sourc...

Stockholm wrote:
I'm also not sure about paying for raises that are beyond the rate of inflation at a time when the economy is shrinking and government revenues are plummeting - but i am open to being swayed as to why i should be willing to pay for that.

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1030294/We-dont-know-details][color=red]Sou...

Snert wrote:
Actually, the first to feel the pinch have been the non-union employees.

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1030397/Quotetheir-seems-be][color=red]Sour...

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:
We could debate over who felt the pinch first but the reality is that pretty much everyone is feeling the pinch these days and are facing some tough realities. Where I work, people have been told that we have to take a one-week unpaid vacation. So that basically amounts to a 1/52th pay cut. Not terrible but it's a sacrifice that we ahve to make cause times are hard. We've got it a lot better than many auto workers who have taken massive pay cuts to save their jobs, better than people who are losing a lot of benefits, pensions being put at risk and a hell of a lot better than the thousands of people who have lost their jobs entirely, are wondering how to pay their bills and [b]would probably love to collect trash at the current salary and only use sick days when they're actually sick[/b].

[emphasis added]

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1030412/We-could-debate-over-who][color=red...

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:
I was pointing out that lots of people (and I'd include forestry workers in there) are facing much tougher situations than not being able to use "sick days" as bonus pays and worked and fought to save their jobs recognizing that this economy is very tough for everyone and sacrifices need to be made. When I look around at all the people losing their jobs, losing their homes, not being able to get UI, I jsut find it very difficult to find much sympathy for these Toronto workers.

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1030426/I-never-minimized-it-oh][color=red]...

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:
I would jsut think that people who look around and see thousands of people losing their jobs, seeing that we're in the middle of a major recession and that everyone is suffering might be willing to make some concessions. I'm taking a pay cut this year. I'm also losing a team member and have had my discretionary budget frozen. Many people have had it much worse. I jsut don't see how the Toronto union can look around and not to expect to share in the burden at all.

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1030508/Unionist-wrote-SSC][color=red]Sourc...

So Stockholm, what's wrong with reading first, posting after?

Tue, 2009-06-23 22:29

#73

G. Muffin

Unionist wrote:
Certainly not. You should voice your opinions and explain why their reasons are mistaken. You should engage them in debate. But if you take the side of the employer, then you've crossed the line.

I don't get this distinction. If you believe the union is in the wrong, how can you help not siding with the employer? What line got crossed there?

And on the sick days issue, I've worked in dozens of positions with all kinds of sick day policies and I've come to believe that the fairest policy is not to have paid sick days at all. Sorry.

Tue, 2009-06-23 22:47

#74

remind

Unions have a bad PR problem? Perhaps only because some people are so conditioned in anti-union and anti-worker sentiment, they can't see the forest for the trees, or because they do not understand collective bargining gives and takes.

Such is the case with banked time being a concession forced upon workers, by employers, instead of a adequate short term diability plan, or other such concessions, which in the 2 cycle after of bargining, or the one after that, the employers spin as injustices/liabilities for them in order to not bargin in good faith and get the public on their side. After all it seems we experience as recession of some kind every second or third major collective bargining cycle, for public employees, and other big unions, since about 1983. So people only see the unions refusing to give way on one concession, when indeed it usually means they are giving way2 as they have had to give way before. Incremental destruction of unions is going on, and nothing more, and it is sad to see other peoples not getting it, and down right infuriating that other union people do not get it, and they should because their unions will be next.

All affected unions, should put out press releases, or even start a collective website that can be used for referencing, to state what has been lost in their collective agreements over the last 25 years. Because there have been some significant losses and no real gains, yet the rich, are richer than ever. And people are still whining about "the unions" being the enemy.

Tue, 2009-06-23 22:53

#75

remind

The fairest policy? For whom?

Tue, 2009-06-23 22:56

#76

Unionist

G. Pie wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Certainly not. You should voice your opinions and explain why their reasons are mistaken. You should engage them in debate. But if you take the side of the employer, then you've crossed the line.

I don't get this distinction. If you believe the union is in the wrong, how can you help not siding with the employer? What line got crossed there?

Sigh.

Do you love your kids even when they're wrong? Your friends? Your neighbours?

What line got crossed here? The class line.

Tue, 2009-06-23 23:05

#77

Unionist

To warm the hearts of some of our anti-union babblers, here is that same piece of shit who regularly supports U.S. foreign policy - [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/the-odds-are-in-his... Gee[/u][/color][/url] - telling the socialist mayor how he should crush the workers and endear himself to the hearts of the Bosses:

Quote:

It's good politics for leftish leaders to show they can be left in charge of the till. Imagine the headlines for Mr. Miller: the lefty mayor who faced down big labour. [...]

If Mr. Miller wants to fulfill his costly dreams, he has to save money on other things, like labour costs. And if he wants to do that, he needs to win this strike.

It may sound twisted to say it, but a global recession and tone-deaf unions have furnished him with the ideal ammunition. If he can find the nerve to use it, both he and the city can come out ahead.

Think he's been posting on babble recently under a [i]nom de plume[/i]?

Tue, 2009-06-23 23:09

#78

Sineed

G. Pie wrote:

And on the sick days issue, I've worked in dozens of positions with all kinds of sick day policies and I've come to believe that the fairest policy is not to have paid sick days at all. Sorry.

This is a bit drifty, but from a healthcare perspective no paid sick days is a bad idea because people will work when they're sick (have done it myself). For a similar reason I'm against banking sick days, as it gives people a financial incentive to come to work sick (as I said before).

Tue, 2009-06-23 23:15

#79

Sineed

remind wrote:

All affected unions, should put out press releases, or even start a collective website that can be used for referencing, to state what has been lost in their collective agreements over the last 25 years. Because there have been some significant losses and no real gains, yet the rich, are richer than ever.

That's not a bad idea.

Tue, 2009-06-23 23:15

#80

Unionist

Sineed wrote:

This is a bit drifty, but from a healthcare perspective no paid sick days is a bad idea because people will work when they're sick (have done it myself). For a similar reason I'm against banking sick days, as it gives people a financial incentive to come to work sick (as I said before).

Agree on both counts. But Short Term Disability insurance IMO can be an acceptable alternative to sick days under many circumstances (I think M. Spector posted on this before), as long as it's not an imposed solution.

Tue, 2009-06-23 23:34

#81

Unionist

You sound a bit confused. I suggest you leave it up to the Toronto municipal workers to decide which of their negotiated benefits to fight to keep, and which to abandon or trade away. Them. The working stiffs.

Tue, 2009-06-23 23:38

#82

G. Muffin

Unionist wrote:

You sound a bit confused. I suggest you leave it up to the Toronto municipal workers to decide which of their negotiated benefits to fight to keep, and which to abandon or trade away. Them. The working stiffs.

It was thread drift, I agree. I shouldn't have been talking about sick days in general.

Tue, 2009-06-23 23:39

#83

G. Muffin

Unionist wrote:

G. Pie wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Certainly not. You should voice your opinions and explain why their reasons are mistaken. You should engage them in debate. But if you take the side of the employer, then you've crossed the line.

I don't get this distinction. If you believe the union is in the wrong, how can you help not siding with the employer? What line got crossed there?

Sigh.

Do you love your kids even when they're wrong? Your friends? Your neighbours?

What line got crossed here? The class line.

And, to be honest with you, Unionist, you sound a bit confused too. Your answer here is meaningless.

Tue, 2009-06-23 23:43

#84

Unionist

G. Pie wrote:

And, to be honest with you, Unionist, you sound a bit confused too. Your answer here is meaningless.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.

Tue, 2009-06-23 23:44

#85

G. Muffin

[post removed]

Tue, 2009-06-23 23:47

#86

G. Muffin

And again.

Tue, 2009-06-23 23:49

#87

G. Muffin

[post removed]

Tue, 2009-06-23 23:55

#88

Stockholm

"But Short Term Disability insurance IMO can be an acceptable alternative to sick days under many circumstances"

and apparently that is what the city wants to do, but I can understand some people don't want Short Term Disability and prefer the status quo...why get something like STD which you only get to use if you actually have a serious illness when with banked sick days you can be as healthy as a horse all your life and then get this $20,000 windfall of being double paid for not being sick (while people who are sick get nothing and are shit out of luck). What's not to like?

Wed, 2009-06-24 00:00

#89

Stockholm

"I'm also not sure about paying for raises that are beyond the rate of inflation at a time when the economy is shrinking and government revenues are plummeting - but i am open to being swayed as to why i should be willing to pay for that."

This is a different argument. I'm saying that when the economy is shrinking, revenues are falling and social service costs are soaring, I don't see how you can justify giving anyone a raise beyond the rate of inflation. You can't give everyone a bigger share of a shrinking pie.

Given that municipalities are barred by law from running a deficit and have almost no ability to create new revenue beyond what has already been done (ie: the land transfer tax etc...) and given that revenues are shrinking and budgets are increasing due to increased social costs - if you were running the city where would you find the money to give municipal workers beyond the rate of inflation at this particular point in time? Would you shut down all parks and receation centres? Or maybe cancel all child care programs? Or shut down the TTC or the police of the fire dept. or how's about simply laying off 20% of the municipal workforce.

Printing more money is not an option.

Wed, 2009-06-24 00:02

#90

Stockholm

"What line got crossed here? The class line."

Except that the "employer" in this case is the STATE - you know, that entity that all good socialists would like to see employing everyone.

Wed, 2009-06-24 00:06

#91

Unionist

Anti-worker crap, non-stop. Luckily no one here takes your rants seriously. [url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1031014/Stockholm-wrote][color=blue]Nor your short-term memory.[/color][/url] Thank God the NDP is better than its "supporters".

Wed, 2009-06-24 00:20

#92

Stockholm

You can dismiss it as "anti-worker crap" if you want - but I think its a perfectly legitimate question - how do you pay higher wages when revenues are shrinking, the economy is shrinking, costs are rising and running a deficit is against the law. What do you suggest? Just dismissing anything you disagree with as being "anti-worker" doesn't cause money to suddenly start growing on trees.

In the end here is what is likely to happen. I think CUPE is hoping that the province will step in very quickly and bring in back to work legislation since that would send everything to a mediator and in almost every case, when disputes go to mediation - the imposed settlement tends to favour labour. The city probably would rather than the strike go on for a few weeks so that they can save so much money in ages that don't have to be paid that they can eventually settle knowing that the strike saved them almost as much money as they would have saved if the union had agreed to the city's terms in the first place.

I think that in all likelihood one of those scenarios will play itself out.

Wed, 2009-06-24 00:21

#93

Stockholm

Unionist wrote:

Anti-worker crap, non-stop. Luckily no one here takes your rants seriously.

Why don't you try spekaing for yourself instead of trying to claim to speak for every single solitary person who ever reads babble.

Wed, 2009-06-24 00:23

#94

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

You can dismiss it as "anti-worker crap" if you want - but I think its a perfectly legitimate question - how do you pay higher wages when revenues are shrinking, the economy is shrinking, costs are rising and running a deficit is against the law. What do you suggest? Just dismissing anything you disagree with as being "anti-worker" doesn't cause money to suddenly start growing on trees.

If you can't afford to buy something, just do without. Live within your means. Take baths, look after your own kids, and compost or re-use your garbage.

I thought your problem was with the banking of sick leave, but now the venom is spewing all over the place. You've gotta cut costs, business is bad, and the greedy workers just want more and more and more and more. Tell them money doesn't grow on trees. Tell them you, the Boss, have to work long hours and weekends with no overtime pay, just to make ends meet.

Oh, and tell them you're Progressive - why? because you support the NDP! What the hell more do they want from you? The parasites.

Wed, 2009-06-24 00:25

#95

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Anti-worker crap, non-stop. Luckily no one here takes your rants seriously.

Why don't you try spekaing for yourself instead of trying to claim to speak for every single solitary person who ever reads babble.

Ok, you're right, I'm sorry. I do take your rants seriously. No one else does. They all PM'ed me and told me so.

Wed, 2009-06-24 00:41

#96

Stockholm

"If you can't afford to buy something, just do without. Live within your means. Take baths, look after your own kids, and compost or re-use your garbage."

Just imagine, if everyone did that there would be no need for any garbage collectors or child care workers at all. The city could tell everyone to "Do It Yourself", fire half the municipal workers and save a bundle. Is that really what you would like to see happen?

We could also tell parenst that they have to home school their kids and get rid of all the teachers. Have you gone Republican on us or something?

Wed, 2009-06-24 00:43

#97

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

Just imagine, if everyone did that there would be no need for any garbage collectors or child care workers at all. The city could tell everyone to "Do It Yourself", fire half the municipal workers and save a bundle. Is that really what you would like to see happen?

Yes. If you can't afford services, you will have to do without. Money doesn't grow on trees. The workers will find other jobs, and you can live alone and pretend you're not part of society. You already talk that way, so no big deal.

Quote:
We could also tell parenst that they have to home school their kids and get rid of all the teachers. Have you gone Republican on us or something?

Anything would be better than whatever education you received. I'm prepared to send you back to be home-schooled, yes.

Wed, 2009-06-24 01:08

#98

jrootham

A depression (worldwide, we are in a depression) is exactly the wrong time for a government to be squeezing its workers.

If we want to get out of the liquidity trap we need spending. Government workers getting good wages is one of the things that will lead us out of the current problem.

We do have a taxing and borrowing powers problem at the municipal level, it makes it hard for cities to pick up the economic slack when they need to.

Wed, 2009-06-24 01:09

#99

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Unionist wrote:

To warm the hearts of some of our anti-union babblers, here is that same piece of shit who regularly supports U.S. foreign policy - [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/the-odds-are-in-his... Gee[/u][/color][/url] - telling the socialist mayor how he should crush the workers and endear himself to the hearts of the Bosses:

Quote:

It's good politics for leftish leaders to show they can be left in charge of the till. Imagine the headlines for Mr. Miller: the lefty mayor who faced down big labour. [...]

If Mr. Miller wants to fulfill his costly dreams, he has to save money on other things, like labour costs. And if he wants to do that, he needs to win this strike.

It may sound twisted to say it, but a global recession and tone-deaf unions have furnished him with the ideal ammunition. If he can find the nerve to use it, both he and the city can come out ahead.

Think he's been posting on babble recently under a [i]nom de plume[/i]?

No need for Gee to post on babble. He's got Stockholm [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/central-canada/possible-municipal-strike-tor... the message for him[/url].