this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
71 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

8859 readers
1774 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

"inflationary pressures" that are causing things like after school programs to be cut, are the union's negotiated salary increases.

if you can’t afford to pay people a fair wage to deliver a service, that service is too expensive… this isn’t the fault of people asking for fair compensation

The wage increases that they negotiate, are also way higher than most of the increases I've seen / heard of in the private sector.

okay but that is an argument that the private sector should be unionised though

union workers still get their ~20% increase over 3-4 years or whatnot.

that 20% is pretty peanuts since it covers the last however many years of unmet CPI increases, as well as the next 3-4 years and probably accounts for another 5 years or more of unmet CPI increases after that

CPI is on average around 2%ish, so that’s 10 years of CPI adjustment total - that leaves 6-7 years, so really only 3 years before and after the time… strikes don’t happen right away - people have been unhappy about their wages for years before

This creates animosity towards what's essentially a privileged worker class

perhaps, but the capitalist class has done a great marketing job then: it’s not unions that’s the problem, it’s the capitalists that aren’t paying people!

(australian, so i’m sure there are canadian specifics with this case but the general concepts don’t differ at all)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

I disagree, especially when focusing on Public Sector Unions. Making arguments about the cost of a service compared to the wage, is nonsensical when discussing public sector employment -- 80-90% of the cost is the wage, and the 'value add' is nebulous and undefined, removed from regular market pressures. Trying to equate the job security provided by public sector unions to private sector business realities is also not convincing -- in private sector, if business is stagnant/declining due to a recession, you fire people -- doing so may allow you to increase wages for those who remain, though they may also need to increase efficiency/productivity. The OPs article is basically about unions wanting to ignore market realities... something that public sector unions do all the time, as they don't need to look at the 'cost' side from a market perspective. They just yell at the government to tax us private sector workers more.

Unions have a purpose and a function, yes. But in public sector they are detached from market realities, and have skewed public sector employees into a position where they are the subject of private sector anger. It sets the stage for Republican style/Musk style cuts to gain support amongst the voting electorate -- so regardless of whatever high horse pro-union people want to perch themselves on, its folly if they don't take this disparity as a serious risk.

Even the Ops article belies that unions are no longer about 'regular' working class people -- the letter is specifically saying that the unions are petitioning to provide better Employment Insurance options for "high earners". So these salaries, that are well above the Canadian average need our government to increase the payouts to help protect those unionized workers from potential job losses? If their high pay is justified by high demand, they should be able to get other employment quickly in their field.... but that whole letter sure isn't about protecting the 'regular' common workers, and its the sort of statement that's just going to antagonize private sector workers who earn "regular" wages. Why should even more of a waiters paycheque go to paying taxes, so that an Airplane Pilot can have an easier time if they lose their top 5% salary job?