Ultimately, unions hold a lot of power, especially in the public sector. The problem is the power that they use to get excessive raises are costly since ultimately, taxpayers are on the hook for the bulk of those costs. I don't mind them negotiating fair settlements to prevent any kind of exploitation but most unions take advantage of the power of the negotiating table.
The idea that the private sector works harder than the public is mostly true. Its not that people in the public sector are lazy but rather that people in the private sector face more pressure to be effective and efficient which draws from being in a competitive environment.
Exactly.
There is a reason I get quarterly performance reviews. It ensures that I remain competitive even when I don't want to be(which is rare by the way).
randomuser(or whatever your real name is :tongue: )
Union jobs aren't necessarily worse, just not for me. I prefer free market over ranking my seniority. The air of superiority comes from my passion and is purely superficial. However, these emotions don't translate very well in a chat forum.
I do hold valid objections over the abuse of unions and I am trying my best here just not to shoot my mouth off( as fun as it is sometimes, lol).
But here is a :boy_hug: from me to you. I respect your opinion and it is valid. Thanks for staying classy in this debate!
Ultimately, unions hold a lot of power, especially in the public sector. The problem is the power that they use to get excessive raises are costly since ultimately, taxpayers are on the hook for the bulk of those costs. I don't mind them negotiating fair settlements to prevent any kind of exploitation but most unions take advantage of the power of the negotiating table.
The idea that the private sector works harder than the public is mostly true. Its not that people in the public sector are lazy but rather that people in the private sector face more pressure to be effective and efficient which draws from being in a competitive environment.
How is the public sectors money going back to the very public that pays them a bad thing? There is little to no capital flight in this manner.
I think on the whole unions really do nothing but good when they're efficient. I don't see any downsides to workers getting money to invest back into the country they live in, rather than being held in corporate bank accounts which are multi-national, or paid to CEO's already earning enough money as is.
If you think about it as well, there are lazy people everywhere, union or non-union. I'm in a union job with competition, all of the job postings at SFU are even called competitions.
How is the public sectors money going back to the very public that pays them a bad thing? There is little to no capital flight in this manner.
I think on the whole unions really do nothing but good when they're efficient. I don't see any downsides to workers getting money to invest back into the country they live in, rather than being held in corporate bank accounts which are multi-national, or paid to CEO's already earning enough money as is.
If you think about it as well, there are lazy people everywhere, union or non-union. I'm in a union job with competition, all of the job postings at SFU are even called competitions.
Lets say a position opens up where you work and you and another person apply for this position internally. Let us also say you are better qualified and work harder than the other applicant. However, the other applicant has 15 years seniority over you.
Would you have any chance of winning this "competition"?
In most unions that would be laughable because the person with 15 years wins every time.
I agree with the fact that at least with unions more money ends up with families as opposed to CEO's or corporate savings accounts and this is good, but the above situation I pointed out is bad. The better qualified and harder working person should always win. I dont care how much seniority a person has.
In my job at SFU seniority isn't as heavy as in say my union job in the customer service industry... where basically your only real specialization is your years of service / seniority.
I would say I have a great chance within SFU at beating people out of jobs where I'm more qualified, in spite of them having 10-15 years more seniority.
In my job at SFU seniority isn't as heavy as in say my union job in the customer service industry... where basically your only real specialization is your years of service / seniority.
If you have years of experience from one service company that is unionized and them move to another then you fall to the bottom of the ladder even though you probably have plenty of "specialization". This is wrong and shouldnt happen.
randomuser;54943 said:
I would say I have a great chance within SFU at beating people out of jobs where I'm more qualified, in spite of them having 10-15 years more seniority.
If this is actually the case, then this is an example of an acceptable union environment that uses seniority as part of many criteria for choosing candidates. This is right and should happen.
Since this was originally an NPD or liberal thread, I introduced this union debate in the debate forum to any who are interested.
Comments
There is a reason I get quarterly performance reviews. It ensures that I remain competitive even when I don't want to be(which is rare by the way).
randomuser(or whatever your real name is :tongue: )
Union jobs aren't necessarily worse, just not for me. I prefer free market over ranking my seniority. The air of superiority comes from my passion and is purely superficial. However, these emotions don't translate very well in a chat forum.
I do hold valid objections over the abuse of unions and I am trying my best here just not to shoot my mouth off( as fun as it is sometimes, lol).
But here is a :boy_hug: from me to you. I respect your opinion and it is valid. Thanks for staying classy in this debate!
I think on the whole unions really do nothing but good when they're efficient. I don't see any downsides to workers getting money to invest back into the country they live in, rather than being held in corporate bank accounts which are multi-national, or paid to CEO's already earning enough money as is.
If you think about it as well, there are lazy people everywhere, union or non-union. I'm in a union job with competition, all of the job postings at SFU are even called competitions.
Would you have any chance of winning this "competition"?
In most unions that would be laughable because the person with 15 years wins every time.
I agree with the fact that at least with unions more money ends up with families as opposed to CEO's or corporate savings accounts and this is good, but the above situation I pointed out is bad. The better qualified and harder working person should always win. I dont care how much seniority a person has.
I would say I have a great chance within SFU at beating people out of jobs where I'm more qualified, in spite of them having 10-15 years more seniority.
If this is actually the case, then this is an example of an acceptable union environment that uses seniority as part of many criteria for choosing candidates. This is right and should happen.
Since this was originally an NPD or liberal thread, I introduced this union debate in the debate forum to any who are interested.