Labor/Labour Pains
Its been an odd couple of months for JenInBoston. Regardless of the personal situation, the current economic showdown...meltdown...er...downturn requires some thoughts on labor/labour relations betwixt the two countries. To this end, I mean to place the emphasis on the worker themselves - how they are treated. This will not devolve into the discussion of the proletariat versus the overlords, but instead I want to explore the socioeconomic ends of labor in both countries (thank you LSE!).
In so many ways the two countries could not be more different - at least from an organizational point of view. The old story goes that Canada's socialist strains has been much more genteel with the worker, whereas the Americans are worked to the bone. Although my research points to American organized labor being older than Canadian (the National Labor Union in the US was formed in 1866), today Canadians appear to unionize and organize in larger proportions than Americans. This, it is often pointed out, is proof positive that Canada is a safe place for the worker.
And I say balderdash - unions in Canada are good work if you can get 'em and it's often hard to get 'em even if you try. Proof positive is the upsurge in both part time (often retail) employment and temp agencies. Both of these 'industries' aim to get around exactly the wonderful protections that unions have tried to harness for workers. Benefits, cost-of-living wages and other protections are largely denied to these workers precisely for the reason of the cost of employing full-time workers. So while at the one end of the market sits the protected unionized worker in Canada, at the other is the temp.
In the US, it is largely true that today fewer American workers are part of unions. In some cases this has been detrimental to the worker, with many lacking the organization and power to insist on basic benefits such as health care coverage. Yet, it has also been the US labor movement that has pushed so hard for workers rights that they are often identified as contributing to current economic problems. If one looks to some of the strongest historical unionized industries in the US, such as the automobile manufacturing industry, one can quickly see the potential hazards in tying large and robust benefits packages to operational costs especially in declining industries. Certainly the costs of retiree benefit packages have been under the microscope by the automotive industry over the last few years in the wake of declining US car sales.
Which gets precisely to the problem of unions in both countries - like the Cheshire cats of Wall Street, the unions too have become greedy. Far beyond pushing for equal pay and equal rights, they have instead started to demand payback and profits from the companies for which they work. But this has lead to greed - "if the boss makes a million on my back I want some of that pay too!" Yet, in reality, there is hardly enough to go all the way around.
How else but by greed can one explain how high school teachers just a few years into their employment in Ontario can make $70,000 a year for the equivalent of 9 months work each year? I'm not arguing that what teachers do isn't valuable socially - its just not that valuable fiscally. While unions have been busy getting greedy and protecting their own, they have neglected to realize that the 7.5% + inflation YOY they get their members means -5% to workers in other industries. That is how we find ourselves with temp agencies and part time work galore.
Also while the kinder-gentler social Canadian approach has been busy empowering the union, the lack of this support has been busy empowering a worker themselves in the US. Obviously, no man is an island (as Nick Hornby...er...Hugh Grant likes to say) and undoubtedly for those lacking awareness, skills or knowledge the deunionization approach can cause a problem and lead abuse of workers. But for the knowledgeable, hardy and confident worker a lack of unions can in fact lead to the power of personal choice (over jobs, salaries, benefits). What US workers seem to have inherently understood that their Canadian brethren haven't is that companies need workers, just as much as workers need jobs. Both are equal parties in the exchange and open to negotiation.
While unions used to protect the unprotected, today's worker must know how to look out for themselves. While trade deals between the two countries used to work to protect workers on both sides of the border, today that is simply too costly.
No man may be an island, but it is everyman for himself.
Workers of the world there is no need to unite - just stand back and think about it for a few moments and you can figure it out for yourself.
Its been an odd couple of months for JenInBoston. Regardless of the personal situation, the current economic showdown...meltdown...er...downturn requires some thoughts on labor/labour relations betwixt the two countries. To this end, I mean to place the emphasis on the worker themselves - how they are treated. This will not devolve into the discussion of the proletariat versus the overlords, but instead I want to explore the socioeconomic ends of labor in both countries (thank you LSE!).
In so many ways the two countries could not be more different - at least from an organizational point of view. The old story goes that Canada's socialist strains has been much more genteel with the worker, whereas the Americans are worked to the bone. Although my research points to American organized labor being older than Canadian (the National Labor Union in the US was formed in 1866), today Canadians appear to unionize and organize in larger proportions than Americans. This, it is often pointed out, is proof positive that Canada is a safe place for the worker.
And I say balderdash - unions in Canada are good work if you can get 'em and it's often hard to get 'em even if you try. Proof positive is the upsurge in both part time (often retail) employment and temp agencies. Both of these 'industries' aim to get around exactly the wonderful protections that unions have tried to harness for workers. Benefits, cost-of-living wages and other protections are largely denied to these workers precisely for the reason of the cost of employing full-time workers. So while at the one end of the market sits the protected unionized worker in Canada, at the other is the temp.
In the US, it is largely true that today fewer American workers are part of unions. In some cases this has been detrimental to the worker, with many lacking the organization and power to insist on basic benefits such as health care coverage. Yet, it has also been the US labor movement that has pushed so hard for workers rights that they are often identified as contributing to current economic problems. If one looks to some of the strongest historical unionized industries in the US, such as the automobile manufacturing industry, one can quickly see the potential hazards in tying large and robust benefits packages to operational costs especially in declining industries. Certainly the costs of retiree benefit packages have been under the microscope by the automotive industry over the last few years in the wake of declining US car sales.
Which gets precisely to the problem of unions in both countries - like the Cheshire cats of Wall Street, the unions too have become greedy. Far beyond pushing for equal pay and equal rights, they have instead started to demand payback and profits from the companies for which they work. But this has lead to greed - "if the boss makes a million on my back I want some of that pay too!" Yet, in reality, there is hardly enough to go all the way around.
How else but by greed can one explain how high school teachers just a few years into their employment in Ontario can make $70,000 a year for the equivalent of 9 months work each year? I'm not arguing that what teachers do isn't valuable socially - its just not that valuable fiscally. While unions have been busy getting greedy and protecting their own, they have neglected to realize that the 7.5% + inflation YOY they get their members means -5% to workers in other industries. That is how we find ourselves with temp agencies and part time work galore.
Also while the kinder-gentler social Canadian approach has been busy empowering the union, the lack of this support has been busy empowering a worker themselves in the US. Obviously, no man is an island (as Nick Hornby...er...Hugh Grant likes to say) and undoubtedly for those lacking awareness, skills or knowledge the deunionization approach can cause a problem and lead abuse of workers. But for the knowledgeable, hardy and confident worker a lack of unions can in fact lead to the power of personal choice (over jobs, salaries, benefits). What US workers seem to have inherently understood that their Canadian brethren haven't is that companies need workers, just as much as workers need jobs. Both are equal parties in the exchange and open to negotiation.
While unions used to protect the unprotected, today's worker must know how to look out for themselves. While trade deals between the two countries used to work to protect workers on both sides of the border, today that is simply too costly.
No man may be an island, but it is everyman for himself.
Workers of the world there is no need to unite - just stand back and think about it for a few moments and you can figure it out for yourself.
posted by Jen S. @ 7:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home