# You can't make this s--t up! (CBC news story)



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

link: http://www.cbc.ca/ottawa/story/ot-library20060201.html?ref=rss

A clearer commentary on the state of public-sector unions has never been written.

However, this issue isn't unique to public libraries. I regularily go to Union Station in Toronto. The men's room gets cleared yearly, whether it needs it or not.

I stopped using the men's room at Yorkdale Mall. It's never cleaned, so I visit the loo at the bookstore (Chapter's or Indigo, I think.)


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Best news line this year: "scene of the grime."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

This brings back memories of working in a union environment. It's good to know they're out there protecting us from unauthorized cleanliness.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

good grief - you think they would simply be happy not to have had to clean it up themselves!


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

2 words: "work ownership"

Really, this may be a Toronto thing. Toronto is notorious for its poorly-maintained public washrooms, surly waiters, and unclean eating areas. Just yesterday, I was in a Tim Horton's on Queens Quay. The eating area was unclean, with unwiped tables and product wrappings everywhere. There were 2 or 3 staff behind the counter, but none chose to do anything about it for the 15 mins I was there. The Second Cup next door always looks just as bad.

The Starbucks across the street is kept clean, but it's usually busy, forcing me back to Tims or Second Cup. That's karma, that.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

:yawn:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

This thread displays a profound misunderstanding of what unions are and what they do. Perhaps the news article confirms what you think you know, but that is fairly limited.

As for service and cleanliness in Toronto restaurants, I'm pretty sure there is a large range of quality available.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> This thread displays a profound misunderstanding of what unions are and what they do. Perhaps the news article confirms what you think you know, but that is fairly limited.


Not at all, the thread is based on a funny example that captures, in anecdotal form, a small part of the reality of unions. Like any power structure, they have flaws, maybe worse than others, maybe not. This thread is not about quantitative proof, but I guess some may miss that. 

Your post, however, displays much regarding understanding and, perhaps, humour.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

HowEver said:


> This thread displays a profound misunderstanding of what unions are and what they do. Perhaps the news article confirms what you think you know, but that is fairly limited.


Perhaps you can enlighten us, then? Or is it just too "profound" for our limited understanding?

At the very least, we know they can't clean up poop at the public library within a 3 hour window.

I've never been one to complain about private-sector unions. Public-sector unions, on the other hand....



HowEver said:


> As for service and cleanliness in Toronto restaurants, I'm pretty sure there is a large range of quality available.


No doubt. I'm sure that the bathrooms are clean at the Royal York Hotel. The point is: dirty tables and dirty washrooms are *not* quality no matter how you look at it. I could do without that "range of quality," thanks.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> Officials say because the cleaners work for the city, they are responsible for a number of buildings. When the problem happened, they were busy at another building.


Perhaps they are somewhat "understaffed"... it is quite possible these days! 

Unions... *next*! - Ontario maybe?



> If right-to-work laws were to surface anywhere in Canada, most bets would be on either Ontario, Alberta, or BC. AFL research director Jim Selby says, "The ideological stance of all three provincial governments is well within the extreme right part of the political spectrum where right-to-work would be considered sound social and workplace policy."


http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2002/05/g.html

Alberta told Rob Anders and his gang to "take a hike" in 1995 but I'm sure they haven't given up... 

I will admit unions are not perfect however instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater consider improvement rather than abolishment...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> I will admit unions are not perfect however instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater consider improvement rather than abolishment...


Right-to-work doesn't throw them out or abolish them, it makes them have to earn their membership instead of membership being forced. That is why unions are dead set against it.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Worked for a Temp agency back in the early 90's. One of my placements was for a canola oil processing plant in Lethbridge (owned by Peter "Puck" at the time), as a general labourer. It was a union shop.

Main duty was to clean up and organize several large storage rooms. There was some margarine that was sitting in some plastic bags placed in cardboard boxes that needed to be run through the processing plant again. Only way to do this was to shovel the liquified margarine into 45 gallon drums which could then be poured and cycled back through the plant.

Carried on for about 45 minutes, then some guy came along and told me that I couldn't do that, it was a union job. As he was not my supervisor, I ignored him and carried on. A few minutes later, my boss showed up, along with the union steward, and assigned me to other work. 

Pay a union guy god knows how much to shovel margarine, rather than the $10/hour they were paying me.

What a crock...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Beej said:


> Right-to-work doesn't throw them out or abolish them, it makes them have to earn their membership instead of membership being forced. That is why unions are dead set against it.


I beg to differ... in the end run unions "cease to be" under right-to-work. 

Oh maybe in the right-to-work states in the US they still have what they call unions but they can do nothing for you in terms of wages... benefits... yada yada yada.

You will find no sympathy whatsoever from a corporate boss on an idividual basis. 

Sorry I cannot offer a Canadian comparison as luckily or perhaps due to *hard work* on the part of some people we don't have a right-to-work model in the country yet... :clap: 

Right-to-work is a nice catch phrase for union-bashing... 

I do know that in Alberta no one can force you to join a union... it's in the labour code. However if you work in a union shop you must pay the union dues even if you choose not to be a member... cry me a river! If you don't like it... don't work there... but don't holler about lower wages and no benefits to speak of.

Yes... I have worked in both unionized and non-unionized workplaces and know the difference.

*FeXL*... congratulations! You are a model Albertan! 

Them's the rules... don't like it... don't work there... 

Keep in mind I did say "improvements"?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> I beg to differ... in the end run unions "cease to be" under right-to-work.


They aren't really serving their membership if their existence requires mandatory membership/dues. Good on them: Acquire power, keep power. Well done indeed. Now workers can be manipulated by the companies and the union! That balances out, sort of.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Beej said:


> They aren't really serving their membership if their existence requires mandatory membership/dues. Good on them: Acquire power, keep power. Well done indeed. Now workers can be manipulated by the companies and the union! That balances out, sort of.


*You* can run any organization on NO funding???


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Them's the rules... don't like it... don't work there...


Odd approach because that is exactly my attitude and exactly why unions are, at best, ineffective. 

If you don't like it don't work there. 

No need whatsoever for a union in that picture.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Beej said:


> Odd approach because that is exactly my attitude and exactly why unions are, at best, ineffective.
> 
> If you don't like it don't work there.
> 
> No need whatsoever for a union in that picture.


But I want a union in my picture...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> *You* can run any organization on NO funding???


When unions were originally formed, they had to collect their dues from willing workers (of course, there was some bullying  ). Their funding should be based on members being impressed with their accomplishments instead of getting money regardless of what they do.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Indeed... most people who work in a union shop are still willing...

I say again... *improvements*... not bashing.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> But I want a union in my picture...


Good. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with closed-shop which forces a union on those who don't want it. I'm not proposing getting rid of them, just getting rid of their 'right' to servitude in a given shop. But hey, that's quite a racket where your revenue is guaranteed. All you have to do is not piss off 50% of your members and you get 100% membership contributions.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dreambird said:


> I do know that in Alberta no one can force you to join a union... it's in the labour code. However if you work in a union shop you must pay the union dues even if you choose not to be a member... cry me a river! If you don't like it... don't work there... but don't holler about lower wages and no benefits to speak of.


I have the opposite circumstance. In the military, there is no union. However, our earnings are tied to the earning of other public sector workers. So whenever there is a wage adjustment for federal employees, it spills over to the military.

So I guess we get the benefits of unions without joining or paying dues. 

link: http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dppd/engraph/dppd_faq_e.asp?sidesection=3&sidecat=31


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Beej said:


> *Good. I have no problem with that.* I have a problem with closed-shop which forces a union on those who don't want it. I'm not proposing getting rid of them, just getting rid of their 'right' to servitude in a given shop. But hey, that's quite a racket where your revenue is guaranteed. All you have to do is not piss off 50% of your members and you get 100% membership contributions.


Cool... I'm glad we do agree on something... 

Wonder how many stockholders a corporation has to piss off before they're in trouble...  <thinking>


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

lpkmckenna said:


> I have the opposite circumstance. In the military, there is no union. However, our earnings are tied to the earning of other public sector workers. So whenever there is a wage adjustment for federal employees, it spills over to the military.
> 
> So I guess we get the benefits of unions without joining or paying dues.


Yes... you find yourself in a similar position my father did working for the School Board in B.C.

As an electrician in his district he did not belong to a union however other people employed by the district did and he benefitted from it.

I will read your link... thanks... 

* the board messed up my quote... that's my story and I'm sticking to it...


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

Those of you dissing the union, you are all missing the point here. 
Forget about the Union.

Occupational Health and Safety guidelines in my province (NL) stipulate that the first person to see/ create a hazard, at their place of work, has a DUTY to isolate the area for safety reasons, or, if it's feasible, to clean up a hazard so that other employees or clients will not be injured. (Like a water or coffee spill)

A person can be charged under the OHS act if there was a failure to act.

In this case, someone noticed there was a failure on the Library's part to take action. The mess was cleaned up in a timely manner. It was risky though on their part to clean up the mess if they didn't have the proper materials to perform the job safely.
I think the appropriate steps were taken in this case. Ontario probably has the same guidelines.
I mean, if it was blood, there would be quite a fracas. Blood is the same type of hazard as the fecal matter deposited in the area. 
It's a: 1) Biohazard (viruses and or bacteria)
2) Safety hazard. (liquids can cause slippery footing)


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Nobody seems to have noticed that there is no official statement from a union rep in that article. The people making the statement are the library employees, not the union. The employees are probably not even cleaning staff. The article actually points out that there is a problem with the cleaning of public places, if you ask me. If the library can't get a cleaner to clean that up within a reasonable time, that 's stupid.

Also, the mess was obviously not an accident, unless it was an overflowed toilet. A bad case of diarhea, give me a brake. You don't go all over the toilet and floor and everywhere else.

People also seem to think all unions are bad. Unions are responsible for pay equity (women and men being payed equal), the reduction of harassment, a safe and healthy work place, etc. I have to admit that I've seen bad unions, but there are also alot of good unions.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

I think ErnstNL has a very good point


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Here's some enlightening. Does your job involve cleaning up feces?

If it doesn't, would you volunteer? Why would anyone else?

The posts above that point out how little this story has to do with unions is correct. It's no surprise that the union-bashing results. It's just a very weakly played example.




lpkmckenna said:


> Perhaps you can enlighten us, then? Or is it just too "profound" for our limited understanding?
> 
> At the very least, we know they can't clean up poop at the public library within a 3 hour window.
> 
> ...


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Here's some enlightening. Does your job involve cleaning up feces?
> 
> If it doesn't, would you volunteer? Why would anyone else?


No, I'd order a Private to do it, if I had to.



HowEver said:


> The posts above that point out how little this story has to do with unions is correct. It's no surprise that the union-bashing results. It's just a very weakly played example.


I'm confused. Cleaning the washrooms was whose job? And it still wasn't done after 3 hrs? What does volunteering have to do with it? And how does a union-shop contracted to clean the washrooms not become a union issue?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

ErnstNL said:


> A person can be charged under the OHS act if there was a failure to act.
> In this case, someone noticed there was a failure on the Library's part to take action. The mess was cleaned up in a timely manner. It was risky though on their part to clean up the mess if they didn't have the proper materials to perform the job safely.
> I think the appropriate steps were taken in this case. Ontario probably has the same guidelines.
> I mean, if it was blood, there would be quite a fracas. Blood is the same type of hazard as the fecal matter deposited in the area.
> ...


Could anyone have been charged? No, feces is a biohazard. If the Library staff didn't have the equipment to clean it, no one could have stated "you were legally obligated to clean it!" That's what the contractors are hired for.

at fault: The contracters who didn't show up in a reasonable time.
at fault: The library staff, who did little or nothing about the issue. They should have been on the phone demanding the contractors show up *now*. But no one could say that the library staff had to be in there cleaning it themselves.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

LPM said:
_at fault: The contracters who didn't show up in a reasonable time._
_at fault: The library staff, who did little or nothing about the issue. They should have been on the phone demanding the contractors show up *now*. But no one could say that the library staff had to be in there cleaning it themselves._

From the story:

_But three hours later, when no action was taken other than *to block off the* *bathroom*, he called the office of Coun. Rick Chiarelli, chair of the library board._

I guess the library staff did what they were obligated to do. I don't want to split hairs here but it's sad that a large public building desn't have a full time custodian. 
I agree that it was a long time (too long) before the mess was cleaned but what the situation illustrated was a lack of services.
The spin about unions is a reach.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

yes, i know they blocked off the bathroom. That's the "little" part of "little or nothing."


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

You continue to side-step one important question... *is there an issue with understaffing?* Why doesn't a building as big as a public library in Ottawa have a full time custodian to itself?

I don't care if the place is unionized or not if whoever does the hiring does not ensure there are enough employees to reasonably and efficiently cover what needs to be done there is a problem! 

No... it's too simple... company has a "problem"... is there a union involved?... there is?... good!... blame the union and move on.

*lpkmckenna*

Oh... not everyone just "has" a Private at their disposal to order around... 

You did state you enjoy the benefits of a union without having to join *or* pay... if that union were not there would you still get what you do?

*edit**

Looking back in this thread:



> Really, this may be a Toronto thing. Toronto is notorious for its poorly-maintained public washrooms, surly waiters, and unclean eating areas. Just yesterday, I was in a Tim Horton's on Queens Quay. The eating area was unclean, with unwiped tables and product wrappings everywhere. There were 2 or 3 staff behind the counter, but none chose to do anything about it for the 15 mins I was there. The Second Cup next door always looks just as bad.
> 
> The Starbucks across the street is kept clean, but it's usually busy, forcing me back to Tims or Second Cup. That's karma, that.


So far as I know all 3 companies mentioned are non-union so don't think the union is to blame... but I doubt it's "karma" either...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> You continue to side-step one important question... *is there an issue with understaffing?*


Good question, but it should keep this in mind: do 'the rules' that define job categories take a situation that isn't understaffed and make it operate as if it is?

This tends to happen when jobs are rigidly defined (ie my role in case of trouble in the washroom is to block it off, and no more. Somebody else's role begins there according to clause a.b.c.). Misallocation of work is a hallmark of any system that trys to rigidly define duties in the face of the unknown (the future). 

Could be understaffing, could be what I mentioned, could be something else. I thought our broader union discussion was more interesting than the article that sparked it, but so be it.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> And how does a union-shop contracted to clean the washrooms not become a union issue?


EASY, it's called CUTBACKS !! Why have a full-time custodian, when you can outsource to a firm that comes in once a day to clean the place.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Beej said:


> Good question, but it should keep this in mind: do 'the rules' that define job categories take a situation that isn't understaffed and make it operate as if it is?
> 
> This tends to happen when jobs are rigidly defined (ie my role in case of trouble in the washroom is to block it off, and no more. Somebody else's role begins there according to clause a.b.c.). Misallocation of work is a hallmark of any system that trys to rigidly define duties in the face of the unknown (the future).


I'm not against some leeway in job descriptions however I do think there's a difference between library staff and custodial staff. I think there's too much of drive for people to be "Jacks-Of-All Trades" so to speak these days... 



> Could be understaffing, could be what I mentioned, could be something else. I thought our broader union discussion was more interesting than the article that sparked it, but so be it.


Agreed... forgive me for being somewhat short today.

Discuss!


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dreambird said:


> So far as I know all 3 companies mentioned are non-union so don't think the union is to blame... but I doubt it's "karma" either...


My point was: that Starbucks is kept clean, so they are always busy. The Second Cup across the street is usually unkept, so it's usually near-empty.

Maybe not a fully causal thing, but there is a correlation.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Beej said:


> They aren't really serving their membership if their existence requires mandatory membership/dues. Good on them: Acquire power, keep power. Well done indeed. Now workers can be manipulated by the companies and the union! That balances out, sort of.


---


not really Palpatine said:


> All who gain power are afraid to loose it; even the unions.





not really Anakin said:


> The unions use their power for good...





not really Palpatine said:


> Good is a point of view. The unions and the capitalists are similar in almost every way, including their quest for greater power.





not really Anakin said:


> The capitalists rely on their property for their strength. They think inward, only about themselves.





not really Palpatine said:


> And the unions don't?





not really Anakin said:


> The unions are selfless. They only care about others.


Incidentally, the point of this little dialogue is that Anakin doesn't fully believe what he is saying. As a Jedi, he is expected to care about others, but he isn't permitted to care about Padme. The difference between caring about someone specific and caring about everyone is exploited by Palpatine. Yes, I love that scene.

Unions face a similar, though inverted, dilemma. They claim to be acting altruistically, benefiting society as a whole, when really they act for their own self-interest (or self-defense, if you will).

Capitalists are more honest. They know and say they are acting in their own self-interest. They also believe that society will benefit as a result of their self-interest. (i.e. Edison is long-dead, but lightbulbs and cameras are still here.) Hence, the notion of "enlightened self-interest."


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

> A clearer commentary on the state of public-sector unions has never been written.)


 For those that have such a hatered of Unions just say "I hate Unions" and there is no need to say "here's why..." I and many other citizens of Eh Mac land will believe you.

It is not illegal to hate Unions in this Country. They're not an identifiable group, There aren't any Prohibitive Grounds concerning hating Unions. Just be-careful not to mention a specific Union as defamation and liable laws do apply.

Actually blaming this "sh!tstorm" (by J.Layhe TPB) on Unions when in reality it isn't anything more than a turf war between Coun. Rick Chiarelli, chair of the library board and Staff of the Library, does not raise your stock in many folks' eyes. 

There is a link following the words "Simon Gardner reports on the fecal fracas. (Runs 1:25 )" (on the top right of the story) to see the actual news broadcast (you will need RealPlayer to view the news item). The news report is not the same as the (linked) written story.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Yes... and then after Anakin falls for Palpatine's prattle and turns to the Dark Side... Padme dies anyway... nice reward!  



> Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith ending / spoiler
> 
> Sidious gives Order 66 to all of the clone troop commanders which states to kill all Jedi. Only Yoda and Obi-Wan survive. Darth Vader leads a team of Clone Troopers to the Jedi Temple and all Jedi die. Not long after, Sidious appoints himself Emperor and declares the Republic a Galactic Empire. Anakin is ordered by Sidious to go to the lava planet Mustafar to kill the Separatist leaders. Yoda goes to confront the newly appointed Emperor and they duel throughout the Senate Chamber. Yoda flees from the battle after realizing that he cannot defeat Sidious. Padmé arrives at Mustafar after Obi-Wan tells her that Anakin has turned to the dark side and Obi-Wan stows aboard her ship. Anakin and Padmé talk until Obi-Wan appears, leading Anakin/Vader to believe Padme has betrayed him. Vader chokes Padmé / Vader and Obi-Wan duel. Anakin loses both legs and one arm as he rolls down to a beach of scolding black rock. Obi-Wan watches in terror as his former apprentice bursts into flames. Obi-Wan takes off in Padmé's ship just before Sidious' shuttle arrives and he takes Anakin aboard. Padmé gives birth to Luke and Leia on an asteroid planet before she dies and tells Obi-Wan that there is still good in Anakin. Anakin receives the black suit and helmet of Darth Vader. Sidious lies to Vader and tells him that he (Vader) killed Padmé. Yoda and Obi-Wan decide to hide some place where the Emperor cannot sense them; *Yoda tells Obi-Wan that Qui-Gon Jinn has found a way to achieve immortality (you know, the whole ghost form thing) and that Obi-Wan must train during his exile to achieve such a state.* Bail Organa adopts Leia and takes her to Alderaan. Vader, the Emperor and Tarkin look out into space to watch the Death Star being built. Obi-Wan takes Luke to Tatooine and delivers him to Owen and Beru.


Seems the Jedi were on to the whole immortality thing themselves anyway and Anakin lost everything turning away from them... 

Good comparison... Science Fiction to real life... 

"The avalanche has already started... it is too late for the pebbles to vote"...


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... "When there's poop on the floor, the first action has to be to clean it up, not send memos and form committees and that kind of thing," Chiarelli said. ..."

Amen.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

gordguide said:


> " ... "When there's poop on the floor, the first action has to be to clean it up, not send memos and form committees and that kind of thing," Chiarelli said. ..."
> 
> Amen.


agreed, but I also agree that a full time custodian (or someone with cleaning skills) should be required for public buildings

farming out cleaning is silly as this article points out
all this "belt tightening" is just getting stupid - after all it is the peoples' money


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I've never been in a public library in Toronto large enough to warrant an on-site custodian. Nothing wrong with "farming out" provided they actually show up when called.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

is it that difficult to have someone cross trained in clean up for out of the ordinary situations?

or is that beneath staff?


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

OK... OK... when I woke up today and proceeded out to the kitchen I was greeted by a *loud* steady hum... loudest somewhere around where it originates... I assume... I have not been able to pin it down.

One of you guys sent someone to bug my house in the middle of the night... didn't you? *insert paranoid smiley**

Please... please... it's driving me nuts... I promise I'll give up my pro-union ways... make it quit!!! :-( 

... actually there's probably a rational explanation which I'll have to leave to an Electrician because it's beyond me to find... however I *do* love a good conspiracy theory! 



> is it that difficult to have someone cross trained in clean up for out of the ordinary situations?
> 
> or is that beneath staff?


I see no problem with that... I don't think it's so much that it's "beneath staff" as that when you hire someone to fill that sort of position... make it clear that it's part of their job description. 

Also these sort of changes in job descriptions etc. have to be negotiated with the union... I don't think it's absolutely impossible. Most unions will indeed have a "knee-jerk" reaction to a perceived threat to remove jobs from their people. 

Another option would be to increase the staff of the union shop hired specifically to take care of these things to a level sufficient to make sure these things are tended to in a timely manner... that would be my first choice...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I would guarantee they would be able to pay for a full-time custodian, if they didn't have to pay outrageous union-wages.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

"outrageous union wages"... Yeah I keep hearing that too... drop the "outrageous cost of living" and then we'll talk about wages...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Also these sort of changes in job descriptions etc. have to be negotiated with the union... I don't think it's absolutely impossible.


Part of the problem, as I proposed earlier. This approach can create an appearance of understaffing. 

This general approach (change = negotiation) can, over time, result in very poorly run businesses. If an improvement (say a new mop!) costs $100 but will be worth it for the customer quality, that same improvement may not be worth it if 20 hours ($700?) of negotiations are required to assign someone partial duty in using said mop. Just a humorous example used for simplicity, but you may see how this applies to broader investments in technology (brand new job classes, fewer jobs in old classes) or simply reorganising duties around multiple facilities (e.g. library general-duty janitor to bathroom janitor in multiple facilities) to be more efficient. Efficiency may be a bad word to some, but how about inefficiency?


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

*shrug**

One may effect change by force as well however I don't see that as a good option in Canada. Call it negotiation... arriving at a mutually agreeable arrangement... whatever... it's preferable to force. 

It's a union's job to serve as advocate for their members... so let them do their job and we won't have to complain that they don't...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> *shrug**
> 
> One may effect change by force as well however I don't see that as a good option in Canada. Call it negotiation... arriving at a mutually agreeable arrangement... whatever... it's preferable to force.
> 
> It's a union's job to serve as advocate for their members... so let them do their job and we won't have to complain that they don't...


I favour mutually agreeable arrangements with individuals or groups acting freely of their own accord. Either way, the poop has got to go.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> I would guarantee they would be able to pay for a full-time custodian, if they didn't have to pay outrageous union-wages.


You can guarantee that, can you? :yawn:

For the record, I never criticized "unions as a whole." 

Private-sector unions have a well-earned reputation for being effective, reasonable, professional, and politically non-partisan. Public-sector unions, on the other hand... :yikes:


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Apparently some folks can*

A critique of posts in this thread. I have included the number(s) of the original posts as some posts are shortened for the purpose of making the point clear. Please excuse the length of this post.

Post #1 


lpkmckenna said:


> link: http://www.cbc.ca/ottawa/story/ot-library20060201.html?ref=rss
> 
> A clearer commentary on the state of public-sector unions has never been written.
> 
> ...


The focus of the linked story is the Library staff and Coun. Rick Chiarelli, chair of the library board. Unions are only mentioned in passing. 

The post says "A clearer commentary on the state of public-sector unions has never been written." is this stated because you hate unions ( or just in the public sector only)?

Post #6


lpkmckenna said:


> 2 words: "work ownership"


Work ownership is a very difficult right for workers to attain.
Do you even know what work ownership might entail? How do you know the staff of the Ottawa Public Library have work ownership. Which Article(s) of which Collective Agreement(s) pertains to work ownership. BTW Which Union(s) and Local(s) are certified to represent the Ottawa Library workers? Are all of the Workers employed by the Ottawa Library unionised? Do you have any knowledge?

Post #8


HowEver said:


> This thread displays a profound misunderstanding of what unions are and what they do. Perhaps the news article confirms what you think you know, but that is fairly limited.


 I am glad to see I am not the only person in Eh Macland with this view.

Post #9


Beej said:


> Not at all, the thread is based on a funny example that captures, in anecdotal form, a small part of the reality of unions. Like any power structure, they have flaws, maybe worse than others, maybe not. This thread is not about quantitative proof, but I guess some may miss that.
> 
> Your post, however, displays much regarding understanding and, perhaps, humour.


 Again another member who choice is to bash unions in the guise of humour when in fact the news story, in question deals with a turf war between Library Staff and Library chair of the Board. But why let the facts get in the way of a ripping good yarn.

Post #10


lpkmckenna said:


> Perhaps you can enlighten us, then? Or is it just too "profound" for our limited understanding?
> 
> At the very least, we know they can't clean up poop at the public library within a 3 hour window.


Who is the "they" referred to here union members or acting director?



lpkmckenna said:


> I've never been one to complain about private-sector unions. Public-sector unions, on the other hand....
> 
> No doubt. I'm sure that the bathrooms are clean at the Royal York Hotel.


 A Unionised Hotel BTW.

Post #12


Beej said:


> Right-to-work doesn't throw them out or abolish them, it makes them have to earn their membership instead of membership being forced. That is why unions are dead set against it.


Right-to-work takes away the democratic principle of a majority of voters passing a proposition. Show me an example any where in Canada where any person *is forced* to join a Union. 

Post #15


Beej said:


> They aren't really serving their membership if their existence requires mandatory membership/dues. Good on them: Acquire power, keep power. Well done indeed. Now workers can be manipulated by the companies and the union! That balances out, sort of.


 Show this Union (just one example will do) where the union does not provide a service to their members.

Post #17


Beej said:


> Odd approach because that is exactly my attitude and exactly why unions are, at best, ineffective.
> 
> If you don't like it don't work there.
> 
> No need whatsoever for a union in that picture.


Good Beej you admit it people are free to make choices sometimes even hard choices. Apparently this upsets you?

Post #19


Beej said:


> When unions were originally formed, they had to collect their dues from willing workers (of course, there was some bullying  ). Their funding should be based on members being impressed with their accomplishments instead of getting money regardless of what they do.


 Where is your proof of bullying. 

The proposition of paying dues is the same as paying taxes. Majority rights. In fact unions are based on membership satisfaction. If the majority of members are dissatisfied they may de-certify. 

Post #21


Beej said:


> Good. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with closed-shop which forces a union on those who don't want it. I'm not proposing getting rid of them, just getting rid of their 'right' to servitude in a given shop. But hey, that's quite a racket where your revenue is guaranteed. All you have to do is not piss off 50% of your members and you get 100% membership contributions.


Do you even know what you talking about or do you like to throw out terms, mix their meanings, to mislead folks

Post # 26


Kosh said:


> Nobody seems to have noticed that there is no official statement from a union rep in that article. The people making the statement are the library employees, not the union. The employees are probably not even cleaning staff. The article actually points out that there is a problem with the cleaning of public places, if you ask me. If the library can't get a cleaner to clean that up within a reasonable time, that 's stupid.
> 
> Also, the mess was obviously not an accident, unless it was an overflowed toilet. A bad case of diarhea, give me a brake. You don't go all over the toilet and floor and everywhere else.


For those members who have trouble with reading comprehension here is a nice synopses of the quoted Article.



> People also seem to think all unions are bad. Unions are responsible for pay equity (women and men being payed equal), the reduction of harassment, a safe and healthy work place, etc. I have to admit that I've seen bad unions, but there are also alot of good unions.


 A reasonable response. 

Post #29


lpkmckenna said:


> No, I'd order a Private to do it, if I had to.
> 
> I'm confused. Cleaning the washrooms was whose job? And it still wasn't done after 3 hrs? What does volunteering have to do with it? And how does a union-shop contracted to clean the washrooms not become a union issue?


 * Your "Confused" NO KIDDING!* 
It becomes a concern for the Union when there is situation that falls in an area that the Union manages. I am assuming,( I have no knowledge of this but on the balance of probabilities) of course that the union, in this case does not have a hiring hall system and dispatches worker where and when required.

Regardless this situation clearly fall under the control of the management of the Library.

lpkmckenna, you and beej seem to have special powers that the normal members of Eh Macland do not have. The normal members used our eyes and ears to garner information from the links provide. You seem to use other means to arrive at your conclusions in the absence of any known facts. 

Post #30


lpkmckenna said:


> Could anyone have been charged? No, feces is a biohazard. If the Library staff didn't have the equipment to clean it, no one could have stated "you were legally obligated to clean it!" That's what the contractors are hired for.
> 
> What does the contract say specifally?
> 
> ...


What planet are you living on that gives you special powers and lets you miss the obvious? 

"Private sector unions are politically non-partisan?" Please! Many of Canada's Unions are politically active and encourage their members to become politically active as well.

You must have totally disengaged from current events as well during the last election campaign.

The CAW (the largest private sector Union in Canada) and Buzz Hargrove its President became politically active in the last Federal election Campaign. They endorsed voting for NDP candidates. And where the NDP didn't have a chance to win, to vote for the Liberal Candidate, to prevent a Conservative from being elected. A few members of the CAW were elected as NDP MP's.

Don't deal with the facts just spin ripping good yarns.

The most dangerous person in this country is the one who believes their own bullsh!t.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Before I reply, I gotta say: if you want to point-counterpoint your post, find a way to structure it so it that doesn't drive your reader batty!


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

BigDL said:


> "Private sector unions are politically non-partisan?" Please! Many of Canada's Unions are politically active and encourage their members to become politically active as well.


Get a dictionary. Politically active != politically partisan.

The fact that the CAW encouraged votes for other than the NDP proves my point, not yours.



BigDL said:


> The most dangerous person in this country is the one who believes their own bullsh!t.


You'd know.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

The "work ownership" comment was a joke. I guess you didn't get it.

Yes. The Royal York has a _*private-sector union*_ staff. Like I said, I'm sure the toilets are cleaned in under 3 hours.



BigDL said:


> The focus of the linked story is the Library staff and Coun. Rick Chiarelli, chair of the library board. Unions are only mentioned in passing.
> 
> The post says "A clearer commentary on the state of public-sector unions has never been written." is this stated because you hate unions ( or just in the public sector only)?
> 
> Again another member who choice is to bash unions in the guise of humour when in fact the news story, in question deals with a turf war between Library Staff and Library chair of the Board.


Yes, and the library staff _*are unionized*_: http://www.cupe.on.ca/www/municipal.

i laid blame on the unionized library staff, and the unionized cleaning staff. Are you saying that only the unionized library staff is to blame of the two?

And this "turf war" you speak of the fact that the chair of Libraries finds polluted toilet seat unacceptable, and had an aide do something about it when the library staff did not.



BigDL said:


> Right-to-work takes away the democratic principle of a majority of voters passing a proposition. Show me an example any where in Canada where any person *is forced* to join a Union.


He isn't. But he is forced to pay anyways.



BigDL said:


> Good Beej you admit it people are free to make choices sometimes even hard choices. Apparently this upsets you?


I have no problem with hard choices myself, provided that I have the freedom to make them. That's the problems with forced union dues. I don't have the freedom not to pay if I don't want the service.



BigDL said:


> Where is your proof of bullying.


He's refering to the bloody history in the early days of unions. Buy a history book.



BigDL said:


> The proposition of paying dues is the same as paying taxes.


Are you saying the unions are entitled to the same powers as government? What is this: syndicalism?

What next: unions will have the power to arrest? Maybe the right to pull over workers who are "speeding" (working too fast)? 



BigDL said:


> Majority rights. In fact unions are based on membership satisfaction. If the majority of members are dissatisfied they may de-certify.


When the Harris gov't tried to make de-certification as easy as certification, the unions when crazy with fury.



BigDL said:


> lpkmckenna, you and beej seem to have special powers that the normal members of Eh Macland do not have. The normal members used our eyes and ears to garner information from the links provide. You seem to use other means to arrive at your conclusions in the absence of any known facts.
> 
> What planet are you living on that gives you special powers and lets you miss the obvious?


I seem to have the powers of logic and persuasion. Is that what's pissing you off?
I also seem to know what everyday words like "partisan" stand for, but you do not.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> I seem to have the powers of logic and persuasion.


Logic?... well OK... I don't want to insult you...  A couple of you have done a good job of making me shake my head.

Who have you persuaded? Not me...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Post #9
> Again another member who choice is to bash unions in the guise of humour when in fact the news story, in question deals with a turf war between Library Staff and Library chair of the Board. But why let the facts get in the way of a ripping good yarn.
> ...
> Post #12
> ...


You seem to focussed on the article, as others are. I was not. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. Of course, I stated that explicitly at some point. You also seem to have something against criticism of unions. Those who lean strongly towards empowering the individual often have trouble with unions, those who lean towards collectivism often don't. It's not that complicated except in dealing with details like 'scabs' and closed-shop rules. Your snide commentary didn't really add anything except a trip down memory lane. 
...
"Right-to-work takes away the democratic principle of a majority of voters passing a proposition. Show me an example any where in Canada where any person *is forced* to join a Union."

Unions are not a government! This argument keeps popping up here and there, but majority rule doesn't control every aspect of our lives. If you and an employer agree on work, a closed-shop union forces you to join despite having no business in a discussion between you and your employer. This goes back to my first point. I'm sorry if you can't see how this is a union forcing you to join, but this issue is about freedom of non-association (does not necessarily follow from the Charter right of freedom of association).
...
The union I was a part of did nothing for me except hold back my salary. My benefits, monetary compensation and work conditions were all worse than a comparable position in a non-unionized setting. 

Unions 'average' things out. They hold back rewarding top performers fully, and over-reward lower performers. There is a claim that the peer group handles incentive to perform better, but this does not seem common. Unions reward years of experience over actual performance. Their performance-based increment systems are almost always subordinate to experience-based increments.
...
Apparently free choice does upset you, otherwise you wouldn't have so much trouble with open-shop rules. They don't take away anyone's rights and give more power to individual choice than our current system. Of course, if you lean towards majority-rule in more aspects of life, you wouldn't agree with this. Not sure why this isn't clear to you.
....
The history of unions is not all just 'fighting the power'. There are cases of it being 'the power'. Teamsters anyone? There's your example of bullying.

Before you fly-off the handle in righteous indignation, it is just an example. I'm not proposing the teamsters as representative of union functioning, nor did my original comment suggest bullying was prevalent (it said some). You wanted an example, you got one.

Your 'same as taxes' argument has already been discussed. I lean more towards individual rights, you more towards collective (majority rule) rights. No big deal.
...
"Do you even know what you talking about or do you like to throw out terms, mix their meanings, to mislead folks"

Not sure what confused you about the statement. It is back to the same issue: majority rights or individual rights. Clear yet?
...

Over all, I'm sorry you seem hell-bent on trying to not understand why some people don't like unions and want open-shop rules to give them individual choice over the matter, instead of being subject to majority rule in yet another aspect of their lives (a very large one, going purely by the hours).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I didn't respond to the points in the imbedded mega-quote because they didn't show up when I clicked 'quote'. 

Summary: More of the same. You don't seem to understand what's going on.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dreambird said:


> Logic?... well OK... I don't want to insult you...  A couple of you have done a good job of making me shake my head.
> 
> Who have you persuaded? Not me...


Hard to convince a mind that functions like a brickwall.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Excellent post, Beej.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

lpkmckenna said:


> Hard to convince a mind that functions like a brickwall.


Oh my... I think I've been insulted! :lmao: 

OK... it's almost impossible to discuss anything logically with someone who thinks so illogically.


----------

