Garbage Strike - Give Me a Break

[someone]

Old Jones,
To be honest with you, it has been way too long sense I did jobs like that for me to have any idea of what the market clearing wage would be. Years ago, before I went to university, during a much worse recession then this (in terms both unemployment and GDP statistics), I recall working at one very physical job for long hours for $5 hr (which, by the way is a great incentive for people to get an education). I agree that the market clearing wage for garbage collectors would likely be significantly above minimum wage (some have made that claim) for the simple reason that there are other less unpleasant minimum wage jobs people could do instead (e.g. a few that come immediately to mind are coffee shops, grocery store employees, movie theatres, etc). However, I doubt it would be up to $18 (plus their benefits) simply because that would indicate that Toronto’s fair wage policy was not a binding constraint and thus (at least in this one case) would not serve any purpose.

 

[blackrock13]

NO there are laws against dumping garbage and fines too. Dump it at city hall they have a large paved yard

There are laws about stopping people at the picket line too. In short, they can't. Their allowed to by the authorities in an offering of good will and fairness on behalf of police that's all. It's a case of letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.

If the by-law officers are, as reported in that fine tabloid THE SUN, jotting down license plates or rifling through bags after the fact of those people dumping garbage for id purposes, they'd better start jotting down the names of picketers who stop people entering the designated site. It's only fair.

 

[oldjones]

someone that was a serious edit you did. Here's my response to the pre-edit, which seemed less accepting of higher than minimum wages: You have heard the phrase, "you get what you pay for" I'm sure. There's good reason why it's a truism. If you make it very clear you only care about paying as little as possible, that is the service you'll get.

Ah, but you also want thorough pick up, that doesn't destroy your bins or make you find them somewhere down the block, doesn't block traffic for half an hour or run at night when routes could be done faster, never mind a service that doesn't let your neighbour w/ the minibin freeload on your taxes by putting out extra bags.

Now you're asking for serious supervisory structures which add cost as well as require workers who can actually take supervision. And they have to be detected in the intake and trained, never mind the cost of the failures you have to fire and replace. Mid-route? Ah a pool of stand-bys.

All this stuff adds cost—never mind you mentioned minimum wage, yet another regulation—and one day or another you're getting closer and closer to that $18 an hour.

There's no justification for crap service, but good service has always cost. The question the "They're paid too much" whiners have never addressed is: What sort of service? All well and good to say "cheaper", but it's never that simple, and we'll have a better city when we abandon that sort of kneejerk over-simplification and really consider the issue.

 

[realthing69]

There are laws about stopping people people at the picket line too. In short, they can't. Their allowed to by the authorities in an offering of good will and fairness on behalf of police that's all. It's a case of letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.

If the by-law officers are, as reported in that fine tabloid THE SUN, jotting down license plates or rifling through bags after the fact of those people dumping garbage for id purposes, they'd better start jotting down the names of picketers who stop people entering the designated site. It's only fair.

The picketers have to block people or at least inconvenience them because that would eventually lead to loss of "power" at the bargaining table for them.

I'd would figure after a while law abiding citizens will get sick of the garbage at home and bring it to the garbage site. If the picketers allowed them to drop them off then eventually more people will do the same. And who's to stop an entrepreneur who has a pickup truck and go around the neighbourhood charging $5-$10 to take household garbage to the garbage site (not sure if a license is required to handle large quantities of garbage).

 

[realthing69]

You have heard the phrase, "you get what you pay for" I'm sure. There's good reason why it's a truism. If you make it very clear you only care about paying as little as possible, that is the service you'll get.

That depends on the individual doing the job. If a person has that kind of attitude then they probably do need a Union to help them get and keep their job.

There are plenty of examples out there where someone will work for less and do a great job at it.

I'm not against the concept of having Unions but if they are going to strike then I hope they are for reasonable things (not too thrilled about them using "intimidation" to make their point too). I have no problems about having 18 sick days but not banked sick days for cash. If the Union needs to provide cash incentive to their members to not use sick days as vacation days, well that tells me something. Yes it happens in non-union workplaces but in those places those employees can be let go.

 

[someone]

That depends on the individual doing the job. If a person has that kind of attitude then they probably do need a Union to help them get and keep their job.

There are plenty of examples out there where someone will work for less and do a great job at it.

Although I think there is some truth to OldJone’s argument, I always think of Canadian airlines as a great counter example that supports your point. Westjet pays less than Air Canada and yet you get much better service from their employees. I would agree that paying employees can produce better services if you can also fire them for underperformance (thus, they have an incentive to work hard to get their higher pay). However, typically unions make it very hard to get rid of underperforming workers.

 

[oldjones]

…edit…I'd would figure after a while law abiding citizens will get sick of the garbage at home and bring it to the garbage site. If the picketers allowed them to drop them off then eventually more people will do the same. And who's to stop an entrepreneur who has a pickup truck and go around the neighbourhood charging $5-$10 to take household garbage to the garbage site (not sure if a license is required to handle large quantities of garbage).

Yes it would figure, but after just a day? Who knew we had so many prissy clean-freaks with so much time and gas to waste?

And Turtle Island on Cherry Street will still take your garbage—for more than the City charged before the strike—if you're a fan of free-market pricing for trash disposal.

 

[squash500]

It's been barely three days; who's so slobby they can't hold their trash for that long?

And who's so stupid as to think it'll be better for their tax bill—and mine—to dump their trash wherever, for extra cost cleanup when the strike's over, instead of just hanging onto it?

Just means more OT for the collectors when they go back. That'll more than make up for their lost wages, because the more illegal dumping, the faster the city'll cave, or the province will legislate.

The essence of beating strikers is to demonstrate, "Who needs you?" Illegal dumping makes their case for them.

Maybe if the cupe picketers would allow more than one car or van to get through the transfer stations every 10 minutes or so then the public wouldn't have to resort to dumping garbage all over the place ?

Why should homeowners have to have Racoons pick at their garbage in hot weather just because Miller can't get those cupe picketers removed from the transfer stations?

I was also listening to John Oakley on AM 640 this morning and a union member called in claiming that it was actually the cupe union members who first started dumping the garbage at Christie pits!

 

[buckwheat1]

They have only been on strike for 3 days give us all a breal wait until it's 2 weeks then we'll have something to talk about

 

[oldjones]

That depends on the individual doing the job. If a person has that kind of attitude then they probably do need a Union to help them get and keep their job.

There are plenty of examples out there where someone will work for less and do a great job at it.

I'm not against the concept of having Unions but if they are going to strike then I hope they are for reasonable things. I have no problems about having 18 sick days but not banked sick days. If the Union needs to provide incentive to their members to not use sick days as vacation days, well that tells me something. Yes it happens in non-union workplaces but in those places those employees can be let go.

I'll stack my truism against yours anyday, but what old saw illustrates your Horatio Algeristic wishful thinking? And how many deadheads do you suppose you'd have to endure, detect and fire before you had a full complement of Stahkanovites? And what would you say when they started telling each other, "we're worth more than they're paying us, y'know"?

Doing your best, regardless of pay is a principle I've always hoped and tried to work to, as have many, many others, but it remains an aspiration, more than a reality. And money is always a great motivator.

As for bankable sickdays: If there are paid sickdays at all, there's an incentive to take them all. Otherwise youv'e worked more days for the same pay as your cubicle mate who did take them all. In effect a pay cut of around 4% if you get 14 days a year. So management loved bankable days because disruptive absenteeism went down—only sick people stayed home—and their costs in days paid but unworked became predictable with little or no increase.

And now there's a nice pot of worker-promised money they can grab. Just like GM pretending they were in the black by using the pension money to cover costs. But just imagine the thought processes of the worker now that she can't bank the sickdays, and tell me what will have improved. In fact a worker taking all their days over their employment may well cost more than the one who just got the bankable six months max.

Much better would be to bank and pay sick days at only a part of full pay, and for those of us who only dream of such, it would be more acceptable. But you could no longer send Typhoid Mary home.

This stuff isn't as easy as it looks.

 

[oldjones]

Maybe if the cupe picketers would allow more than one car or van to get through the transfer stations every 10 minutes or so then the public wouldn't have to resort to dumping garbage all over the place ?

Why should homeowners have to have Racoons pick at their garbage in hot weather just because Miller can't get those cupe picketers removed from the transfer stations?

I was also listening to John Oakley on AM 640 this morning and a union member called in claiming that it was actually the cupe union members who first started dumping the garbage at Christie pits!

Right. Phone-in callers. Always a reliable source.

The guys dumping in parks where kids play and dogs run haven't got the brains or conscience to use a transfer station, whatever the picket situation. They're just lazy, antisocial pigs. I'd like to see everyone of them caught and fined so much they'd take a chaingang option to labour cleaning up their own crap. But I doubt it would teach them anything.

As to pickets and picketer-removal, it's a provincial matter, if you're gonna spew blame uselessly at least get the politicians right. Makes you sound more credible.

Anyone so incompetent at manging their household that missing a trash pickup by one or two days—no one gets Monday pick up—already has them victimized by raccoons should really move to a condo where such things are professionaly managed.

The idiots who've played into CUPE's hand by showing up on Day 1 to make trouble on the lines deserve their frustration and inconvenience. Staying calm, leaving them to bake alone in the sun and waiting until week's end when official drop sites are established has a much better chance of ending the strike quickly.

 

[elmo]

So basically Miller won't play hardball with his $25/hr union garbage collector budies but he will still collect city taxes and not provide the service of garbage pick up (among others) and will also fine citizens for dumping... Basically he has the balls to go after the taxpayers who have done nothing to create this situation but not he cause of the situation. Perhaps the taxpayers should go after him during the next election and vote him the fuck out...wake up people.

 

[realthing69]

And what would you say when they started telling each other, "we're worth more than they're paying us, y'know"?

Well if they insisted on more pay I hope they would be professional enough to quit on their own and find another job that pays what they think they are worth. I just don't like the idea of holding an employer (or public for that matter) "hostage".

As for bankable sickdays: If there are paid sickdays at all, there's an incentive to take them all. Otherwise youv'e worked more days for the same pay as your cubicle mate who did take them all. In effect a pay cut of around 4% if you get 14 days a year. So management loved bankable days because disruptive absenteeism went down—only sick people stayed home—and their costs in days paid but unworked became predictable with little or no increase.

Again this comes down to the individual using sick days as vacation days. If my co-worker is a lazy ass, yeah I'd a little pissed off but probably wouldn't have a great working relationship with that person and not do any favours for him/her.

Maybe it would be better if all the employees were salaried rather than being paid by the hour??? I know it costs more for the employer but haven't thought about it yet in detail. If I was an employer I don't mind paying the extra bucks provided that my employees don't abuse it and I can afford it. There is a fine line between being a good employer and a bad one.

And now there's a nice pot of worker-promised money they can grab. Just like GM pretending they were in the black by using the pension money to cover costs. But just imagine the thought processes of the worker now that she can't bank the sickdays, and tell me what will have improved. In fact a worker taking all their days over their employment may well cost more than the one who just got the bankable six months max.

OK, we've kinda reached a compromise on the idea of a "cap" on bankable sick days. Me personally, I don't have an issue with 5-10 sick days for cash over the course of employment capping at 90-100 days or something like that.

 

[oldjones]

How do workers hold an employer hostage when the employer's telling them that's the rate, take it or take a hike? Isn't she making the hostages sign the Pirate's Code or walk the plank? In any case, all I'm suggesting is you're gonna be faced with upward wage pressure pretty fast if you're depending on staffing with people better than their rate—and that was the premise. You'll either lose them and have to operate at less than design, which is how we get to :"you get what you pay for" or you'll have to bargain with them and pay more. Talk nice, get nice, Talk tough, get union.

What you want to do if you choose to offer sickdays is make your workplace desireable to workers. Banking potentially encourages workers to show up, because they collect sickleave at retirement, and you don't have to shuffle their work around when they phone in. Take away banking, and they'll wanna stay home. Treat them like white-collar—is that what you mean by salaried?—and how do you handle abusers? By what rules and standards, and if they differ by collar class, why not just keep the sick days?

It's easy, just design a system that keeps sick people home and encourages well people to show up without creating unfairnesses that encourage people to 'pay themselves'. But when you do, it's gonna be part of employer-employee talks and there'll always be those.

See first paragraph.

 

[blackrock13]

The picketers have to block people or at least inconvenience them because that would eventually lead to loss of "power" at the bargaining table for them.

I'd would figure after a while law abiding citizens will get sick of the garbage at home and bring it to the garbage site. If the picketers allowed them to drop them off then eventually more people will do the same. And who's to stop an entrepreneur who has a pickup truck and go around the neighbourhood charging $5-$10 to take household garbage to the garbage site (not sure if a license is required to handle large quantities of garbage).

Hey, now if I only had a truck. I don't think a license is needed, but it wouldn't take long for the strikers to figure it out and they go out of their was to hassle the driver.

The stopping of people is just something that makes them think they have 'power'. They have none. Their stopping people is an action given to them by the police on site as a way to appease the picketers. The cops can take it away really easily if they choose and that usually ticks picketers really quickly till they come around and behave.

The other things union stewards don't tell people on strike is that after an extended strike, maybe 6 months, the company has no legal obligation to guarantee the picketers their jobs back. They'd do it because they want to not because they have to. It's an eye opener when the strikers find out.

The people I really feel sorry for are those who use day care and the other services affected by this strike.

 

[club69]

with the current hot weather, the problem is turning into health hazard quick, let's just use the law to force them back to work, or fire their sorry a$$es and contract out and save all taxpayers some $$$

 

[blackrock13]

Although I think there is some truth to OldJone’s argument, I always think of Canadian airlines as a great counter example that supports your point. Westjet pays less than Air Canada and yet you get much better service from their employees. I would agree that paying employees can produce better services if you can also fire them for underperformance (thus, they have an incentive to work hard to get their higher pay). However, typically unions make it very hard to get rid of underperforming workers.

Westjet does well because their business model far outshines Air Canada in all direction. Yes their pay is less, but the employee get a cut of any profit. The first thing Air Canada did when they were let off the financial hook was to paint their new colours and make their employee by new crappy uniforms. That really improved service, didn't it. Their still making stupid decisions about pets, over weight people, baggage just to name few and they still whine about not making money.

Not a good comparison,

I don't mind paying someone on an 10 hour day and if they do it in 8 properly, everybody's happy. You billed the client on 10 hours. You don't lose. If it 10 in 6, it's time to re-think things. If the workers whines, you know where his head is and in ain't in the realm of fairness for everyone and he'll eventually get bitten on something else and lose out.

 

[The Options Menu]

Look, until you learn something about economics, your opinion of it is not worth much as far as I am concern. It would be like my stating an opinion about criticisms that theoretical physics has gotten too far ahead of the ability to test the theories. Perhaps the criticisms are valid but my opinion of them would be worthless and I would never pretend otherwise.

I repeat, you took one word, repeated it 15+ times, and keep beating it like a drum. 'Learn something' is your case is actually the opposite of learning. It's the most daft for of a religious mantra. YOU WANT ME BELIEVE IN THE RELIGION OF YOUR BRAND OF 'NOT HARD SCIENCE'. And then you cast aspersions when a person doesn't agree, or emerges as a product of the system with some notion a sane economics that produces societies you'd actually want to live in.

The simple truth is that the overarching brand of economics you adhere to has fallen out of favour. Fallen out of the favour with most governments, even more people (who never much favoured it in the fist place), and with such far left entities as the heads of the IMF. Cling to your religion, beat a drum, and call me a liar. Meanwhile, in the real world your religion is dying. It's dying precisely because of the notion of a neoliberal economics as a 'pure science'. It's dying because of people like you. Like the joke, "Schools run better without children", neoliberal economics (or whatever umbrella term you want) as a 'pure science' works better without humans. (Which was the ultimate failure of communism as well.)

Boutros-Ghali, "In [the] future, [the IMF] should vary its policy recipes… I want an institution that is more involved not only as a global policeman but as a global witchdoctor." Oddly enough, that is the pragmatic view that repeats. It's a call for context, compassion, and holism. Indeed, in places that practised the above (without the IMF) have actually produced robust growth over the long term AND societies you'd want to live in. It's not that there aren't valuable lessons to be learnt from a 30+ year experiment, it's just that people like you are incapable of learning. You prefer religiosity (the economic segment of neoliberalism as a hard science), casting aspersions, and name calling. So, for the 3rd (and final) time sod off.

 

[buckwheat1]

CLUB69 - there are laws against it. IF teh garbage was going to a private contractor for less money do you think your taxes would go down? NOWAY they'd just shift that money onto something else

 

[blackrock13]

CLUB69 - there are laws against it. IF teh garbage was going to a private contractor for less money do you think your taxes would go down? NOWAY they'd just shift that money onto something else

I think taxes seldom go down but it would be nice if they went up more slowly or were used more wisely. That's the point was trying to really make.

You want to really smack the government for it's taxes, stop smoking. Mind you, they just legalize some of our more famous recreational drugs and get it back.