Discussions

So, union busting is actually more or less illegal, and has been since 1948. It's part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So of your employer is actively discouraging unions, it might actually be breaking the law. Still think that's a good thing? Makes you wonder what else they're up to.  
 
It's your prerogative to not want to join a union. Just be glad you're not a woman. We still live in a society where women sometimes earn less than a man simply because she's a woman. That's what negotiations on a one on one basis can gets you.  
 
Back in the 80s and 90s, unions were instrumental in getting women equal pay for equal work in the public sector. My mom was impacted by that, so I know what kind of money we're talking here. She also worked in a place where 90% of the employees were women, but more than 3 in 4 managers were men. Unions helped make the hiring process for equitable.  
 
I don't always like unions or their tactics. But as a woman, I'm thankful they exist and have helped make the workplace more fair and equitable for all employees.  
 
To the people bemoaning how much LC employees make: why do we insist on decrying those who make a decent wage instead of demanding that everyone makes a living wage? If you make a terrible wage and/or have no benefits, that's not the employees fault, it's your employer's fault.  
 
Demand better.  
 
Oh wait. That's what unions do...

That was your choice. This is theirs.

Not really a choice.. kinda need a job aka. Money to live and eat and in brandon it seems minimum wage is the way. I had a full time job and a part time job to just make ends meet because I couldn't get a job in the professional field I was working in previously that did pay well. And social assistance is like $700-$800/month... doesn't cover rent

it is great to have a discussion about this strike situation.But having an understanding of the present situation, and not one a hundred years ago would help.

unions have had their time to right some blatant wrongs in the employment field. now it seems they want to make moves that justify their existence. (sounds like a politician) i do not understand the total inability to come to labor agreement before a contract expires. it just seems to me a whole lot of people are not doing their jobs.

If someone wants to get a higher wage go for it.  
 
Personally I would go for more hours guaranteed and benefits increased. Lots of places have benefits for part timers.  
 
Benefits are worth gold and more than any raise  
 
Fact is that.  
 
Increase wages. Prices go up.  
 
This includes minimum wages. Yes that needs to go up.  
 
As prices go up as well. Are any of us further ahead?  
 
Unfortunately not.

It’s sad that after they screwed over health care workers they moved on to MLC. I don’t know where some of the figures are getting but the $500 is maybe a month not a week for striking. The fact that a cashier is making the same wage as a hca is gross. Unions used to be great in history but manitobas labour laws are some of the worse in Canada and why are they working to change these laws? Mandatory over time ? Not much on how many hours a person can work. How many hours between a shift no matter the length of shift nope. I don’t know what MGEU and MLC hope to do except piss off Manitobans. MGEU is too big for their britches and are just a political money grabbing organizations. On top of it all the employees are going to be screwed over anyways, the government and the union will hand over a contract for the employees to look at it will look decent and half of it will disappear after signing. Happened already to other government employees

Those of you that are jealous of what union workers are paid or not paid, clearly you chose the wrong line of work. That is no one’s fault but your own. Why come on here and spew your opinion that no one asked for. Entitlement.

Some of us believe in working for what we have and progressing as the result of our own personal effort, skills development and growth rather than relying on collective bargaining. That’s not entitlement, that’s practical.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2023-08-13 09:42:08

wait until MPI goes on strike too. Apparently they are voting this week to strike, what is said to believe 100% in favour of striking.  
 
https://www.mgeu.ca/news-and-resources/the-latest/news/2250

Whether they make a lot or not, they make what they make and with inflation what it is, their 'real' wages are going down given the rate of inflation. Why should anybody have to accept that? According to that logic, anyone who's masking more than minimum wage should accept pay cuts as long as we can point to someone else who is poorer.  
 
Negotiating one-on-one will work for a minority of people but leave most worse off. It assumes everyone is a good negotiator - this is easily proven false - and assumes employers will treat everyone equally when they negotiate with them - this had also been proven false, for example by gender, as someone already said. One-on-one deals also guarantee that there will be lots of inequity among employees.  
 
Why do agreements expire before a new one us negotiated? Nearly always because employers have no incentive to reach a deal quickly. MB labour law limits how far in advance you can start negotiating before the old deal expires. It just takes time, but even worse when the employer drags their heels.

In making any of these points do you at all consider whether employers small or large cannot afford to continue raising wages or benefits at the levels some are currently expecting? Do you at all consider that employers will be forced to increasingly replace employees with automation, technology and artificial intelligence therefore putting people out of work?  
Do you consider that increased costs will lead to reduced services available to the public and lead to the closure of businesses small and large?  
There has to be a two way street. Increased wages and benefits must be earned by improved productivity and efficiency. Otherwise it’s unaffordable and unsustainable.

On the flip side, if a business is only profitable by taking advantage of their employees, how truly viable is that business model?

That’s making the grossly misguided assumption that all employers and business owners are out to take unfair advantage of their employees. In my experience as an employee that isn’t the case at all.  
Of course you can flip that again and consider that if an employer can run the same business or provide the same service using automation and AI without the need for employees then why wouldn’t they do that?  
Agriculture is a prime example. When my great great grandfather started farming 150 acres he employed 15 workers. Now we farm 2000 acres worked by my Dad and I . Investment in Equipment has allowed us to shed the burden and inefficiencies of employees which would make us unviable and become much more productive ourselves. It’s called progress and the workforce has to keep up with that, become more efficient and productive or be replaced. It’s a reality that a lot of unionized workforces can’t face but eventually they are going to have to.

I absolutely consider those factors. Liquor Marts generate massive revenue. It would be a totally different conversation if they were losing money. You're making a chicken and egg argument. Inflation drives up prices and workers' salaries aren't keeping up. This inflation wave is definitely not being driven by public sector wage increases because there haven't been any for the past five years. Most public sector workers are still way behind the cost of living increases of the past half decade. But liquor mart revenues are doing fine.  
 
I terms of automation, employers in the private sector will always have this pull, and its bound to increase. By your logic, the only protection for employees is if they are cheaper than machines. Nobody will be able to negotiate against replacement by AI on a one-on-one basis. Labour needs to be organized to protect itself from that threat.

That’s just what people fail to understand.  
At the end of the day the labour force becoming organized will make little difference. No matter the industry , the workplace, the product produced or the service provided productivity must and will be improved one way or another. That’s just the way the economy works. The challenge is how do you address that. Industrial action only makes employers more determined to find efficiencies as they must do to survive in the long term.

Snowballs.. they don't not make $500 a week.? It's $500 for the month?  
Also the scab replacement workers that ha brought in are getting $20 an hour !! Quite a bit more than your average worker.

Perhaps if the MLC employees are unhappy with their above average retail worker wages they picked the wrong line of work.

Liquor marts generate large revenues because there is no competition. Since there is no competition they can afford to pay much better wages and benefits than any other retail business. The workers that are on strike don't realize what they already have these are not specialized jobs.

By productivity do you mean more output by input of labour (time/effort) or more output per input of $ (such as wages)? They aren't the same thing. For example, if your prices (and revenue) go up, and at the same time you cut wages, are your workers more productive?  
 
Alternatively, improving productivity only matters if your output can be sold. If we go too far down that road, too much product is being made for the market to consume, because workers aren't earning enough (collectively) to buy it all. Some, but very few, capitalists understand this. Increasing productivity can't go on forever. There's 'normal' profit and there's excessive profit. The latter is destructive in the long term.

Workers can’t be paid more unless they produce more for their dollar and time spent. We used to work to book times where we were expected to consistently exceed 100% efficiency with a goal of achieving significantly more.  
As workers become more productive an employer can either sell more product,/services or employ less people. That’s enhanced efficiency and is a necessary goal for any employer to survive.  
Revenue is not the same as profit margin. A lot of revenue generated is often swallowed up by business costs and reinvestment . However the potential of making a profit is the very incentive to invest in a business. Without that there wouldn’t be any businesses to employ anyone anyway.  
Labour disruptions directly cause business and service closures and can often lead to significant job losses. In the long run employees receive little benefit from joining such actions and are often worse off. I’m sorry but I’ve recently seen unions demanding significant pay rises going into double digits for their members, that’s excessive and no employer can afford to do that across an entire workforce.  
The cost of living has increased dramatically for everyone but it also has to be Bourne by everyone. You can’t constantly expect employers alone to be held to ransom and to make up such a difference. And they won’t , they will shut the doors for good.

It appears that union is not happy that MLL accepted the conciliator's suggestion to go to arbitration. Perhaps they are concerned that when Red River and ACC went to arbitration, it was deemed a fair deal to get the exact same 2% per year x 4 years as the MLL employees have before them. My other thought is that the union may be short sited as they are making it clear to the government that privatization might be the direction to go in the future. Members should always be cautious when they blindly endorse everything the union executives state. Unions take care of unions first and members second.

Kinda funny that nobody mentions the fact that MLA's all get consistent wage increases of 11% to 14%. The next politician increase is set for April. They will get another increase of at least $10,000 per year. now lets look at the civil service that gets 0% to sometimes 2% after being without a contract for years. After 13 years I have total increases equaling 6.25%.  
Stephenson argues that they get a fair raise due to cost of living increases.  
So guess their cost of living goes up more than the rest of us.  
Instead of blaming the liquor employees for asking for equal increases, maybe ask why the politicians deserve more.

Also, since after 13 years and a 6.25% total increase, let's look at minimum wage history.  
April 2010... $9.50  
April 2023... $14.15  
If you started on min wage in 2010 and got a total of 6.25% up to now you would be making $10.07/hr.  
That was minimum wage in 2010. So with the same increases that I have received it is equivalent of someone now working for $4/hr below min.

"Workers can’t be paid more unless they produce more for their dollar and time spent" - this is patently false. It's completely contrary to the essence of inflation. You clearly have an extremely one-sided view of the economy, ans of capitalism generally. Pretty much everything you say may be true for individual businesses in the short term, but not in the long term of general economic cycles, and not in the aggregate for the economy as a whole. Yes, capitalism only works on the basis of the existence of profits, but there are 'normal' profits, and there are excessive profits. Don't conflate them. And the disadvantage of labour in terms of wages always translates into market effects (demand) in the long term and in the aggregate, that leads to economic crises. Recessions and depressions have never been the result of workers being paid too much, or disproportionately to their productivity.

Experience gained on both sides as an employee and a business owner prove otherwise. Positive discussion and fair negotiation yields results but must benefit both sides. Disruptive action yields little benefit to anyone and usually leaves people worse off.

Employers pass on these costs to the consumer just as employers would pass on the rising cost of supplies necessary for the operation to their consumers. An employer that would choose to go out of business rather than accept the reality that is the costs of doing business should never have been in business in the first place.  
 
Even though people WILL freak out at the notion of higher prices driven by higher wages, it often boils down to $1 or $2 on top of a big mac. Relatively small sums on items that one probably should be questioning the purchase of if $1 or $2 makes a difference either way.  
 
While I completely understand that this context will change when it comes to say grocery shopping, remember that if these people are not getting their living fully off of wages, then it will be coming from somewhere else. More than likely, publicly financed sources like food banks or income supplements.  
 
You are paying for it either way. And it does indeed seem like a no win situation. Nonetheless, such is life.  
 
Instead of going after workers doing that they can to ekk out a living, here is a new line of questioning.  
 
Why are oil prices so high and oil production still so low? What happens when the lifeblood of world commerce is shooting up in price faster then a rug pull coin?  
 
What other entities are contributing to this by artificially gouging their consumer bases? Should it be possible for gigantic corporate entities that are heavily reliant on shipping and transportation (RETAIL!) to be making huge profit margins in this environment?  
 
People don't like complexity. But the world is messy. Kind of off topic, but it certainly fits. At least the MLCC/MLC/whatever has a union backing them. Most people do not.  
 
In a sense, its good that decades of labour stability have eroded most people's viewpoint as to the necessity of strong unions. But this is why we need them.  
 
I do not work within a union myself. My current environment does not need it (I couldn't ask for better ownership or management). But every other environment before that was VERY different.  
 
Edited by Simonwalcal, 2023-08-17 15:01:32

You've hit on a kernel of truth. Yes, 'positive discussion' and 'fair negotiation' do indeed produce results that benefit all. But negotiations are often not 'fair', and when they aren't, workers have few options. Is it 'fair' that during a period of rising revenue and even faster rising cost of living / inflation, workers get 0% wage increases for years in a row? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all employers treat their workers unfairly, or that it's normal for negotiations to result in job action. This is the minority. It's just more visible. The vast majority of collective bargaining results in presumably mutually beneficial agreements. After all, in the end the workers vote to accept (or not) the negotiated settlements democratically. Just don't assume that all employers bargain fairly. 'Disruptive action' is a last resort. Does it leave people worse off? Well, the fact that people are willing to walk in the face of what they see as unfair treatment says that the alternative is worse. It's a choice between 'worse' and 'even worse than that'.  
 
I'm glad your experience as an employee and business owner has been different, but not everyone has been so fortunate. My experience equally 'proves otherwise'.

Similarly not all employees bargain fairly either. And it isn’t fair to an employer when they have an unproductive employee but they have have to jump through the hoops to get rid of that employee making room for a more suitable replacement.

if the LC employees bargain by pulling straws, by number, or seniority or maybe its first come first served.