[Fist Gamet]

Hard to make comparisons, Tapper, as I can only make assumptions from your point of view on NZ and I know nothing about the employment and history of unions in NZ. I would say that your comment about not having seen these things in Unions in NZ tells me that you know little more than I about the employment and union history of NZ. I would be willing to bet that the very reason such protection is enshrined in NZ laws is precisely because unions have fought for those rights in the past (a perusal of information online tells me I am probably right in this). Governments really are not likely to simply hand out better pay, conditions and benefits unless pressured to do so. They never have. They are voted in and then do whatever they must to stay in power. And that costs money - lots of money.

I do have to take you up on the point that I am scaremongering. Seriously, mate, do some digging on the history of employment laws, unions and pay and conditions over the last couple of hundred years. You will hopefully see the plain truth of what I said.

If I take your point of view as the only one from which I can comment, it seems very much that unions in NZ are indeed taking the piss (teachers, in this instance) if they exist simply to create a fight to get more and more for their members at the expense of others. They should not be a vehicle for getting all you can, for pushing hard at the expense of all else, and everyone else. I would agree with you that is wrong, morally wrong and socially irresponsible. I think in my first post I stressed the point of fairness, which is not what is happening in this case. It also takes me back to my point that unions must have the goodwill of the people on their side - which, as you say, they did not and so their fight fell apart. It does sound like the unions in NZ do indeed have too much power, because I do think of the government / union thing as a balancing act, a powerful negotiation tool to strike a fair balance and outcome - not to be abused either way.

In keeping with the theme of parody, unless NZ is some kind of Democratic Utopia, I really do hope you don't actually believe that the government is there to protect you, Joe Public, and your interests. The government does not exist to protect you from the all powerful unions so the argument kinda falls apart. The idea that we should retain the right to strike to defend ourselves 'in the end' suggests that you somehow think this is a way to protect ourselves from unions - which makes no sense. At my most liberal, I will accept the government is there to protect the country, the infrastructure and the financial health and wellbeing and all this supports. However, as you can see all around the world today, if protecting the country means fucking over 90% of the population, then that is exactly what they will do. The unions are (in the UK, then) at least one weapon in our armoury to curtail the vast and crippling cuts to wages, conditions, services and so on that they would enforce upon us. It is far too difficult for governments to put the burden of the MASSIVE debts we are all mired in back onto the banks and financial institutions responsible for them. The governments are handicapped by their utter reliance on the banks, and the banks know it. Much easier to use the media to convince us all that we are all in this together and that eroding pay and conditions for the millions of ordinary workers is the only way forwards. In the UK, without the unions, we would all be far, far worse off than we are even now. This is why we must talk of the global economy when discussing the usefulness and necessity of unions.

I would argue that my point about linking the unions argument to the right to strike is simply inseparable. Unions do not form spontaneously and nobody will even look if you lead a one man strike. It is all the old adage that you can ignore one unhappy worker, but you cannot ignore 100,000 of them. Governments hate strikes, and that is why they try so hard to take away that right from you - because it is the only thing that really hurts them.

For example: Today, the National Union of Teachers (NUT) in the UK announced it will strike over more cuts to pay and conditions. Following two years of pay cuts, loss of pension, less teachers, bigger class sizes, less funding, more scrutiny, and endless criticism over how they do their jobs, they voted hugely in favour of a strike because they have had enough. They don't want more, they are just trying hard to hold on to what they have having already sacrificed pay and pensions. Perhaps this is the biggest difference between the NZ and the UK experience?

The government response: 'We are dissappointed that a small minority of NUT members voted this way' (87%, making this statement a blatant lie that they don't even try to hide) 'Industrial action would disrupt pupils' education, hugely inconvenience parents and will damage the profession's reputation in the eyes of the public' - which is disrespectful and dismissive. It is demonisation of workers, professionals, who have had enough of being so badly treated. Thus, the government ploy is to try to convince you that they were somehow not involved and the fight is between the unions and the general public. Do you see? This is repeated ad nauseum around the world.

On the other issue of whether or not unions have lost touch and require a rethink of outdated thinking or tactics...I am all ears. I am not sure what else anyone expects of them? they exist to serve a purpose - yes, one that can be corrupted such as it seems in NZ and SA - but a specific purpose all the same. How else do they protect workers?

[Silencer]

Fist Gamet, on 09 September 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

Hard to make comparisons, Tapper, as I can only make assumptions from your point of view on NZ and I know nothing about the employment and history of unions in NZ. I would say that your comment about not having seen these things in Unions in NZ tells me that you know little more than I about the employment and union history of NZ. I would be willing to bet that the very reason such protection is enshrined in NZ laws is precisely because unions have fought for those rights in the past (a perusal of information online tells me I am probably right in this). Governments really are not likely to simply hand out better pay, conditions and benefits unless pressured to do so. They never have. They are voted in and then do whatever they must to stay in power. And that costs money - lots of money.

Ah, perhaps. I speak from the perspective of what I've seen over the past decade or so and little else - but as far as I'm aware there is little that the unions have done that actually helped their own case (iirc; the Boiler-makers union ended up shooting themselves in the foot and killing the industry, and same for the Rigger's union). Bearing in mind you're talking about a country that tends to be on the forefront of social change. Women and the right to vote, civil unions, anti-nuclear, anti-apartheid, etc, etc - yes, we are quite likely to hand out better pay, conditions, and benefits ESPECIALLY when our used-to-be-the-communist-party Labour Party is in charge. Sure, it's all in order to get and keep power, but this is the party which declared interest-free student loans were a great idea without regard to how much it was going to cost in the long run just to win an election. *shrug* And as for costing money...yeah, it's got nothing on our social welfare system in terms of cost, lol.
So from my perspective in NZ, the Labour party is as "in the pockets" of the unions as the National party is "in the pockets" of big business. No joke.

Quote

I do have to take you up on the point that I am scaremongering. Seriously, mate, do some digging on the history of employment laws, unions and pay and conditions over the last couple of hundred years. You will hopefully see the plain truth of what I said.

Fair does...over the last couple of hundred years. But surely the whole point of a debate in which some people have claimed the perspective of the unions is outdated and their methods need to change implies that what they were or did in the past couple of hundred years is somewhat to one side? Assuming for the moment that no Human Right's violations occurred any more, for example, would we still need/want/expect Human Right's organizations to be prominent and acting like they have for the past hundred year's? No. So why so with unions?

Now I appreciate that your argument is that they are still very relevant - that may indeed be the case in England and the US...you guys certainly have more social and economic issues than we do - but my argument is that it's different here.

Quote

If I take your point of view as the only one from which I can comment, it seems very much that unions in NZ are indeed taking the piss (teachers, in this instance) if they exist simply to create a fight to get more and more for their members at the expense of others. They should not be a vehicle for getting all you can, for pushing hard at the expense of all else, and everyone else. I would agree with you that is wrong, morally wrong and socially irresponsible. I think in my first post I stressed the point of fairness, which is not what is happening in this case. It also takes me back to my point that unions must have the goodwill of the people on their side - which, as you say, they did not and so their fight fell apart. It does sound like the unions in NZ do indeed have too much power, because I do think of the government / union thing as a balancing act, a powerful negotiation tool to strike a fair balance and outcome - not to be abused either way.

As far as I'm aware there are unions in Australia with waaaaay more power than the ones here have. Of course, Australians have a correspondingly higher wage. Then again, they apparently have a much higher standard of living and things are much cheaper (still not sure how that works, if people are being paid more across the board, but whatever) overall. >.<

The thing is, though, that the unions are always looking for support from the people, but whether they have it or not is irrelevant - or it was, until we got hit by a major natural disaster (and even then, only because it was National in power who, as stated before, are not exactly union-friendly). The governments have always caved into the unions on the strength of the union plus two or three thousand random people alone. There've been some serious battles in the past, of course - the unions don't just get whatever they want - but they always ended up with something in their favour at cost to the taxpayer.

Quote

In keeping with the theme of parody, unless NZ is some kind of Democratic Utopia, I really do hope you don't actually believe that the government is there to protect you, Joe Public, and your interests. The government does not exist to protect you from the all powerful unions so the argument kinda falls apart. The idea that we should retain the right to strike to defend ourselves 'in the end' suggests that you somehow think this is a way to protect ourselves from unions - which makes no sense. At my most liberal, I will accept the government is there to protect the country, the infrastructure and the financial health and wellbeing and all this supports. However, as you can see all around the world today, if protecting the country means fucking over 90% of the population, then that is exactly what they will do. The unions are (in the UK, then) at least one weapon in our armoury to curtail the vast and crippling cuts to wages, conditions, services and so on that they would enforce upon us. It is far too difficult for governments to put the burden of the MASSIVE debts we are all mired in back onto the banks and financial institutions responsible for them. The governments are handicapped by their utter reliance on the banks, and the banks know it. Much easier to use the media to convince us all that we are all in this together and that eroding pay and conditions for the millions of ordinary workers is the only way forwards. In the UK, without the unions, we would all be far, far worse off than we are even now. This is why we must talk of the global economy when discussing the usefulness and necessity of unions.

See above. Also, the debt NZ is in comes as much from the governments of years gone by as it comes from the banks. Yes, the banks and financial institutions have a role to play, and a reasonable one at that, but what it comes down to is that our government preferred to borrow money to pay our excellent social welfare, healthcare, education etc costs. Especially Labour. And from my perspective the government, as you put it, is a check and balance on the power of the unions, right? So how exactly does the argument that the government 'protects' us from the unions invalid when you yourself say that they balance each other out? Without the resistance the government does put up to the unions, the average tax-paying citizen would be a lot worse off.

If you will, rather than "protecting the country at the expense of 90% of the population", our government tends towards "protect 50% of the population at the expense of everyone else plus the country". It's just the way we run. I've yet to hear a government actually propose cuts to wages on any large scale (iirc, the Police took a budget freeze this year, which probably equates to a similar thing for people down the line), let alone to the point of "ZOMG, our government wants us all to be slaves again!", for certain.

Quote

I would argue that my point about linking the unions argument to the right to strike is simply inseparable. Unions do not form spontaneously and nobody will even look if you lead a one man strike. It is all the old adage that you can ignore one unhappy worker, but you cannot ignore 100,000 of them. Governments hate strikes, and that is why they try so hard to take away that right from you - because it is the only thing that really hurts them.

Again, I don't see the government trying to take that right away from anyone. In the UK, of course, you guys had those atrocious riots not so long ago and so I can see where the immediacy of this sentiment comes from in regard to that - but outside of that, has the UK government honestly been actively trying to take away people's right to strike? O.o
Not to mention that I disagree that unions form spontaneously. There's no reason why they wouldn't if the proposed conditions were bad enough; people would naturally band together and organize if things were that bad. Hell, people do here, who aren't even working together - they join forces against state asset sales, or gay marriage, or whatever - why would it be LESS likely for people to do that when they know each other and are in the same, immediately affected, demographic? I agree with the basic principle of 1 vs 100,000 making a difference (not that you'd ever get 100,000 of anything together in NZ for a strike, but whatever) I just don't see why that necessitates the existence of permanent unions.
And I should think that on a basic level, everyone hates strikes. No-one should LIKE strikes. It means something is wrong, it means people aren't working, probably because they're not being treated well. I appreciate that you mean governments hate striking for a different reason, but this is my point about the antagonism of an organization set up to basically be a permanent threat to their employers/the government; it CREATES discontent just by existing!

Quote

For example: Today, the National Union of Teachers (NUT) in the UK announced it will strike over more cuts to pay and conditions. Following two years of pay cuts, loss of pension, less teachers, bigger class sizes, less funding, more scrutiny, and endless criticism over how they do their jobs, they voted hugely in favour of a strike because they have had enough. They don't want more, they are just trying hard to hold on to what they have having already sacrificed pay and pensions. Perhaps this is the biggest difference between the NZ and the UK experience?

Probably. On the whole NZ has it good. We just seem to think we should have it BETTER. And we have the most overactive complex ever in regards to comparing ourselves to other countries (always unfavourably) - we also tend to forget that we have less population than some major cities in the countries we compare ourselves to. The thing is, if teachers were going to get paid less, they still wouldn't have much to complain about, imo. It would suck for them, naturally, but they still get paid plenty in a fairly secure job especially given the current economic climate. I mean, if you take it dollar-for-dollar the vast majority of our trained teachers are earning "more" than your guys are - for 50%+ of our trained teachers they start on $40,000 or more per year, and they seem to be able to earn a lot more in their basic role based on experience than yours can. That is not, of course, taking into account exchange rates and whatnot - on the other hand, in general, I've found that basics in the UK cost pretty similar to basics in the NZ, during my short time there last year, and what you earn is only really relevant compared to where you live.
[sources: http://www.minedu.go...Allowances.aspx
http://www.education...ry-scales.aspx]

Quote

The government response: 'We are dissappointed that a small minority of NUT members voted this way' (87%, making this statement a blatant lie that they don't even try to hide) 'Industrial action would disrupt pupils' education, hugely inconvenience parents and will damage the profession's reputation in the eyes of the public' - which is disrespectful and dismissive. It is demonisation of workers, professionals, who have had enough of being so badly treated. Thus, the government ploy is to try to convince you that they were somehow not involved and the fight is between the unions and the general public. Do you see? This is repeated ad nauseum around the world.

On the other issue of whether or not unions have lost touch and require a rethink of outdated thinking or tactics...I am all ears. I am not sure what else anyone expects of them? they exist to serve a purpose - yes, one that can be corrupted such as it seems in NZ and SA - but a specific purpose all the same. How else do they protect workers?

I didn't realize your government was starting to actually resemble that found in V for Vendetta. O.o I mean, government's the world over are not exactly trustworthy or anything resembling perfect, but if yours is BLATANTLY lying to you can I suggest a revolution? >.> At least ours is subtle about it...
As for what unions can change...how about more of a focus on working WITH employers and governments rather than against them? As I said, the fallback of striking is always there, but it should be just that - a fallback - not something which unions resort to the second they aren't getting everything they want right up front no questions asked, or something undertaken casually, as it is in NZ. /shrug


Also, I'm Silencer, not Tapper.

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

I was going to quote the relevant bits, but messed it up and deleted the parts I wanted.

For some reason teachers striking seems to be a common theme and teachers complaining during negotiations is always something people here take offence to (mainly due to the complaint that they earn, what for some people is, a full years wages only working part of the year and have better benefits than much of the private sector). For reference, every contract between the BC government and the teachers union here between 1992 and 2005 was legislated into law by the provincial government as the two parties could not agree. In 2001 the provincial government declared teachers an essential service, which means that striking and several other forms of job action are illegal for them (though they did go on a short illegal strike in 2006). During their latest contract dispute, which just ended, there was no strike. Instead the union encouraged teachers not to participate in voluntary activities (eg. coaching sports teams or any other extra-curriculur clubs)and stopped filing report cards unless needed for post-secondary applications.

Here is the BCTF salary grid page for up to 2010 or so http://www.bcpsea.bc...lary-grids.aspx A few comments on the wages shown. I believe these are before benefits and are typically amounts you could live decently off of as long as you aren't trying to buy property in the Greater Vancouver area.

Legislating people back to work has been a fairly common theme in Canada under the Harper government as well. With workers in airline and rail either being legislated back to work or had it threatened in recent years due to the potential adverse effects on the economy. Some of which I can see (eg. if the railways were to shut down there would be some serious issues in terms of moving goods), but this also included flight attendants.

So, in some ways, the right to strike has been limited/taken away here in recent years and I would not be surprised to see it continue to erode in the future depending on who we elect next time around.

The other thing I wanted to say in regards to unions was that how important they are definately depends on the jurisdiction. The recently formed unions in China may end up being more important for members over the next dozen years than any in North America.

[Morgoth]

Teachers are more likely to strike because governments are more likely to make cuts in education rather than in services that voters would feel the direct impact.

By striking teachers provide a consequence that the voters feel directly (suddenly you have to stay home with your kid), and as such make it harder for the government to make those cuts. What else are they do to?

Not that the tactic works in all instances. In the US for instance, years of attacks by the right have mostly turned people against the teachers unions, which is blaming a symptom when they should be blaming the cause, but alas.

[drinksinbars]

Sadly strikes are sometimes necessary. In the uk the squeeze on public and private sectors has been going on for years, and little or no discussion between the workers and higher ups takes place. Its all very well for think tanks of politic advisors to decide on a strategy from whitehall, but when it comes to the implementation they seem to ignore many of the basic facts of living their cuts make on normal workers. central government always builds its decision making around the capital and leaves many of the more rural economies in ruins as a result.

the next thing we have coming in the uk public sector is localised pay, so people who live in london (already subsidised) will earn more than someone else in another part of the country doing the exact same job. many people who havent seen a pay rise in four or five years and already struggling simplyt o afford basic standards of living are facing pay cuts because some boffin in london decided he pays slightly more for his rent than someone in the north so they should earn less. you have an entire country shackled with the chains of a welfare state gone mad, and billions pushed off in foreign aid, while infrastructure crumbles under the weight of rampant immigration.

the public sector workers though are a ripe target for the simple fact that the government and its media can use pensions (not ordinary ones but those of the senior management who are making the big swathing cuts and love authorising their big pay increases despite the supposed block on pay increases. dont even mention how the politicians want to drop to four day weeks and get a 14% pay increase despite many working second jobs) and private sector finance can be used to push the public sector as a big drain on the economy. yet as soon as these 'savings' are announced from swinging cuts in services the same people complain that services arent as good as they used to be and theres loads more unemployed as people in the lower levels of the public sector earn more if they just don't bother going to work.

take forced retirement etc - you had thousands of border staff and police retired to save money and clear space for some young blood to come in, then they have to hire them all back as temp staff on permanant basis because there isnt enough bodies to do the job once everyone is gone. or the fact they sold all the government buildings before the boom and now pay ridiculious rental rates to occupy property they once owned. lets not even mention selling off our gold reserves, taxing the fuck out of people for driving to work and pushing cycle schemes when the vast majority of people outside of london need to commute long distances just to get into the office while public transport costs more and more every year.

so yeah when you have an epidemic of problems, and there is no opposition in government fighting for your side, and lets face it in the uk everyone is now a leftie, its just a competition to see who is the best of a fucking piss poor bunch then people sometimes need to make a stand by stopping work for a day to show. "here mister, do you think we don't do anything all day? Well this is what its actually like when we don't."

[Morgoth]

Quoth the dibs, "no capitalization"

[drinksinbars]

caps is for asses

[D'rek]

I don't know if it would really change much, but I would like to see what it would be like if public sector jobs did their contract negotiations publically - ie all offers, counter-offers, and other steps taken are released to the public in full as soon as they are done and all pertinent facts are public, too (mostly benefits and salary information {in general, not divulged on an individual basis}, which is already public in most of these cases anyways). News and other information sites can do updates and analysis which everyone can read and therefore the general populace can be much more informed about what the negotiations are and make up their own mind on whether they support the union/employees or not.

As Morgoth said, with something like teachers the general populace easily feel a significant impact if they strike, but if it happens all the time people start to turn on them. Having everyone able to actually see whether they feel the government is abusing them or whether the teachers are being greedy can lead to an informed public opinion. If people mostly feel the teachers are in the right they'll be more supportive and hopefully demand the government not be so draconic. If people mostly feel the teachers are being too greedy, the teachers union will be disenfranchised and may settle for less than they were bargaining for.

It would also reward groups that actually do reasonable negotiations, as we'd see when one side of the table belligerently insists on their ideal goal and makes no effort to compromise, or if one side purposely stalls the negotiations for obscene amounts of time, etc.

Currently, everything (at least here {Canada}) is done behind closed doors and the specifics of what is offered, what is negotiated, etc is only revealed in very vague terms, ie on the news you'll hear "The Ontario teachers are negotiating for increased wages, while the provincial government wants to put a freeze on benefits." I never feel I have enough information to determine if I support one side or the other, and so the whole process just annoys me if I'm affected by it. Being able to have a more informed opinion and seeing how it is actually playing out would, I think, alleviate that.

[McLovin]

Teachers in Chicago (the US's 3rd-largest school district) have gone on strike. Our DB is so timely!

[Fist Gamet]

We rock...

I am all for openness and transparency, D'rek, and I think you are right that in negotiations involving public sector workers it should exist. In fact, it is not the inclusion of the public sector that sells it for me, but the participation of the government in it. Be open and fair, and as other examples posted here have shown, you must have the "people" on your side to succeed. That, is where a well-led union will excel.

Slightly off-topic but related...DiB mentioned the "think tanks" which are, imho, wholly reprehensible inventions that simply further serve to take important decisions on our lives (your lives) and countries, further from the hands of the public. It strengthens this government persuasion that important issues and financial stuff is far too complex and troublesome for the mildly intelligent public, and so it must be put in the hands of "experts" to decide for you. All sorts of bullshit policies are made this way.

All of our discussions here still centre of what Tony Judt would call the "language of economics" where everything of importance in life is reduced to its monetary value and whether or not we can easily weight and measure it. For example, a large swathe of parkland has a definite dollar/pound value, but hpw do you quantify its value to the people who walk their dogs there? Those who jog or play sports or lounge in the sun or just enjoy the trees? What about quality of life and mental health?
Just don't let the governments convince you to think of everything in the financial sense. If you want to really understand this in a way I could never hope to convey, read Tony Judt.

@DiB...a rant I would have been proud of (except for the bit about immigrants and the welfare state - a whole different discussion)