Discussions

Life isn't fair dude. That employee safeguards sometimes work towards the wrong employees is just a part of employment of any number of people beyond 30 days. It isn't fair that a job des:cription can change at a moment's notice either, but such is the nature of business.  
 
Imagine how little we would get done if we allowed extenuating circumstances to dictate every facet of life. Why do anything at all if sOmEoNe could possibly take advantage.

Well that’s clearly not right then is it to allow all of the legal protection to the employee, especially if they are poor workers or unproductive. And this is the biggest problem with union representation. Workers are considered as if they have the same skills, the same attitude to work and the same productivity. Obviously no two people are the same which is why collective bargaining is poor practice. Employees need to be treated as individuals, not numbers and that’s how a union considers them, a number that pays their union dues. One day people will smell the coffee, wake up and realize it. And when that happens we will all be better off.

You've convinced me. Because a small minority of workers don't work hard, employees should have as few legal protections as possible. They don't deserve democratic organizations to protect them from unscrupulous employers because profit is more important. Those darn unions who just want our dues, they need to go because they're just taking our money and... um... using it to protect our rights. Unions aren't allowed to make profit so I can only assume they are engaged in shady money laundering schemes to give it to themselves because... um... they're just ordinary workers who have been elected to represent other workers... Most aren't paid to do this work so that must be the attraction... Or working for what they believe is right. No, that can't be it.

I feel that y’all are both at opposite ends of this debate when ideally, there should be a happy medium.  
 
Bad owners/managers are why unions were created. Workers needed protection from all sorts of wildly inappropriate actions.  
 
Workers still require protections because there’s still money hungry owners in the world. Lots of them.  
 
It’s also frustrating to see crappy workers be protected by unions. We’ve all seen it.  
 
I don’t how or where to draw the line. Maybe it’s not possible?

You're definitely right. Problem is, I don't know what a happy medium would be. So for me, the question is which of the two polar ends of this spectrum you prefer. I'd rather have most workers' rights protected as much as possible, since the employee-employer relationship is a massive power imbalance in favour of the employer, and accept a few bad employees along the way. And by the way, unions aren't ignorant of this. In the most egregious cases, they will help employers get rid of bad employees. Or refuse to represent a worker claiming a dubious grievance. In fact, in most cases, employers still have all the power they need to get rid of the worst workers. Unions just make sure the process is rigorous, and half the time, employers just don't fulfill the basic requirements, like documenting a history of poor performance, for example, before going forward to disciplinary action.

We have a tentative deal...  
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/liquor-strike-manitoba-tentative-deal-august-23-1.6945600

The people of Manitoba would be doing themselves a favour not wasting any money on a strike .Let the government collect the taxes on the licquor and let the private sector manage it.We can not keep subsidizing inefficient systems.Anbody that thinks this is a well run business has not ran one.

Let's be clear, a good deal for those people is a good deal for everyone. If you think inflation is outpacing worker pay, then how do you expect income to improve??  
 
Siding with owners, CEO's and large corporations isn't going to serve anyone but the CEO's. Let's face it, if liquor sales go private, that extra money made off of sales goes straight into the bank account of the CEO/owner. Right now, that profit offsets taxes.  
 
If you think that profits to owners, with lower employee pay is better for Brandon, then I have grave concerns with the direction we are headed. Better pay for workers is good for everyone...no matter who you work for.

I disagree. Government would continue to receive the tax revenue from liquor sales without incurring any costs or having to cover the overheads of running a retail business. Government has never been any good at running these kind of entities, they allow costs to spiral with no control over spending.  
The private sector would be able to provide a more efficient service using existing retail space and dispose of an inefficient workforce. Not saying that’s fair but when you go on strike and cause disruption that’s what you have to expect as a Long term outcome.  
As for keeping up with inflation I’m afraid that is not an employer’s responsibility, they only need to be competitive where possible, if costs are too high then a business is unviable and has to be closed.As long as wages increase and consumer spending continues to rise, inflation will increase and interest rates will have to rise. It’s a vicious circle . Ultimately the only cure for high prices is high prices and we all have to spend less to achieve that.  
Industrial actions don’t benefit the economy, the employer or ultimately the employee.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2023-08-24 11:11:00

You do realize that MLCC is profitable, right? MLCC netted nearly $600 million in 2021-2022, and was on pace to do at least a similar amount, if not more in 2022-2023.  
 
I don't know if there is a breakdown on how much of that is from the liquor marts themselves, versus permits, lotteries, etc etc. For arguments sake lets say it's half though. If we were to privatize all liquor sales, where do you intend to make up the $300 million in revenue for the government?

Are you sure that privatizing the liquor stores would eliminate the union? Sometimes when the provincial government sells off a department, the deal i:ncludes the agreement that the workers keep their jobs (or they get moved over to a different government job if that's what they prefer) and they continue to be represented by the MGEU.

Yes it would easily eliminate the unions. Liquor sales would mostly be handled by existing grocery and convenience stores employing the staff they already have. This would have the happy result of increasing the footfall and business in local grocery stores and improve their viability while encouraging free enterprise. They would not employ unionized workers, I know some will say that’s illegal but an employer can still decide who they employ and given the choice it’s not a difficult decision.

They make a profit because they have a monopoly and that’s a very bad thing. It time to open up the market to local grocery and convenience stores and let them have a piece of the pie.  
Reduced government revenue can be made up by increasing taxes on liquor, beer, cigarettes and cannabis not to mention the reduced expenditure by not have to pay wages and overheads to run all the liquor stores.  
Don’t forget that tax revenue will also be increased as the independent businesses will pay more tax on their increased profits from liquor sales.  
Privatization would be a win win for government and the public.

You do know that many grocery stores have unionized workers, right? So shifting liquor to existing grocery retailers would fortunately not eliminate unions. Can you please explain why private owners making even more profit is preferable to workers' wages keeping up with inflation? If expanding profit is the most important thing in the economy, then it must continue until workers can no longer afford to buy the things that manufacturers make and retailers sell. Sure, there must be modest profit, but it must be balanced with decent wages. If profits increase, then wages need to increase as well. Otherwise the result will be the increasing impoverishment of the vast majority of people while a small minority get wealthier. After all, if wages don't go up with profit, that means either prices have gone up (revenue) while wages didn't (cost), or the workers have been making more output but not getting paid more for doing so. Either way, stagnant wages mean the working public won't be able to buy the more expensive (first scenario) or more numerous (second scenario) output. The result is catastrophic for continued growth of the economy in the long run. This is what causes recessions and depressions. I hope you aren't under the belief that these are good for the economy.