I'd also like to point out something that I just thought of...

Know how lots of people complain about how jobs in Canada and North America are being lost to outsourcing to Asia, Africa and Latin America?

It's because of unionization, and the ridiculous demands that many unions bring to the employers. Unionization in the developed world is actually decreasing the number of jobs in our society (due to higher labour costs), while at the same time pushing wages in less developed countries down, since they are trying to be more and more competitive for labour intensive work.

Just another happy thought about unions I thought I'd share.

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

And Mike, I reaaaalllyyy feel for you. You will have a horrible first few months during tutorial discussions, the level of immaturity and silly comments from Upper Middle/Upper Class kids(who mostly end up in socsci after being not so good in school and not willing to work hard for sciency stuff either) will be just *facepalm* every single tutorial! They will dismiss your real life experiences(Which I believe will give you an edge, just like my international experience did) with their suburban bubble assumptions. But the T.A's will love you for the edge you bring to discussions!

lol...I got soooooo confused here. You mean Mark, not Mike

Huzaifa is right though, you may have a hard time fitting in in your first year because there are a lot of goofballs who don't end up succeeding (as I said, most people are 'young whippersnappers' who went straight in after highschool with no experience).

But he's absolutely right, and I predict that by 2nd year you'd be quite esteemed among your peers. (: I have known a few people who were maybe 10, 15 years older than me (and in my program) since my third year, and they were generally accepted by everyone. When you work together (on assignments etc), differences tend to disappear.

Given your experience too, you could probably be more social with the TAs and profs, going out for beers and such.

Originally Posted by c.erl

That being said, its not fair to paint all unionized employees as individuals who would block welfare recipients and school children from receiving services they need. That is not fair, completely baseless and rather insulting.

Its not fair, but its also not baseless. Unions gave themselves that bad rap, by, y'know, doing those things. I don't think all unionized workers are the type that would participate in such unsavoury actions- at one point I was unionized as well (as it was mandatory). But if unions expect get any sympathy from the public they need to keep those extremists who would do such things in line.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Unions are now, and will be a universal need until corporations and government bodies take a little more social responsibility then they have in the past and respect the rights of the worker and the rights of the shareholder equally.

I have not seen one union dispute over rights, ever. It has all been people wanting more privileges- higher pay, more sick days, etc.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Because, whereas our circumstances are different, I may be at more of a disadvantage then you, but that does not make me any less worthy to have the same opportunities as you do.

If we're just talking equality of opportunity, sure. Unions tend to, in my experience, promote equality of outcome though. There is a huge difference between the two.

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

pzztt you suburban kiddes :p I spent 18 years in Karachi Pakistan. An Urban dump of 16 million people, We actually don't have anything called littering laws or any trash pickup thingies or a working Sewage system! Soo lol I'm pretty unaffected by Trash Pileups, but I understand the Garbage Issue has really skyrocketed the sentiments!

At least you don't have to pay taxes to someone not to do that stuff

It's not only that too; it's also things like having shuttle service to the island cut-off.

I used to be against unions.

Then I got fired for taking a sick day. It was mother's day and my boss found it highly suspicious for some reason. He had previously told me I was an excellent employee, it was the first day I had ever taken off, and I even left a message for him the night before saying I would not be able to come in.

I looked up the Ontario Labour laws, and turns out if a company has less than 50 employees, you are not entitled to any sick days ever, which seems absolutely ridiculous to me.

The problem with unions is that not everyone is unionized. For doing the same job a unionized employee will get paid way more and get way more benefits than one that is not unionized.

What I think should happen is that they should just get rid of unions all together and the government should just make stricter labour laws that apply to all employees, not just those in unions.

Originally Posted by Ownaginatios

At least you don't have to pay taxes to someone not to do that stuff

It's not only that too; it's also things like having shuttle service to the island cut-off.

Lol sadly being a government airline employee my dad does pay a decent amount of Taxes. But those taxes end up with the corrupt politicians(we are pretty badass on the corruption rankings) or being spent stockpiling weapons or general unaccountable nonsense spending, which is even more pissing off!

p.s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5Hd4GiLi74& You asked why Muslims don't eat pork on the other thread right?

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

p.s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5Hd4GiLi74& You asked why Muslims don't eat pork on the other thread right?

Pssssh, yes, because a Christian preacher is who you go to for dietary advice . I also highly doubt pigs intended for consumption are fed big bags of garbage like the guy implies.

Modern cooking techniques have pretty much eliminated the threat of contracting trichonosis from pork. I don't see anything wrong with not wanting to eat it, considering most people from cultures that followed not eating pork never developed a taste for it. To bring up that other thread though you're talking about, I found it silly that the person wanted a new sandwich simply because the person who made it touched pork (which had already been cooked I might add ) before hand.

hmm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nZAh...eature=related
I'm not sure how medically proven all those worms are but apparently cooking doesn't really affect it :S

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

I have not seen one union dispute over rights, ever. It has all been people wanting more privileges- higher pay, more sick days, etc.

I just noticed this part of your post, that is not true by any means! I don't know how to search for it but I'm sure there are countless examples documented and undocumented where unions have fought for rights and working conditions and fair practices!

Here's a recent example: CAW's list of demands for the McMaster nonacademic staff:

3. Job Evaluation System:
University wants full control of the job
evaluation system.
Our proposal is status quo: our continued
involvement in the Joint Job Evaluation
System is necessary to ensure that our
members receive fair and equitable
compensation for their work.

http://www.cawlocal555.ca/doclinks/Bulletin12.pdf

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

hmm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nZAh...eature=related
I'm not sure how medically proven all those worms are but apparently cooking doesn't really affect it :S

I don't know, I've never met anyone who's contracted worms before (aside from my dad who apparently contracted them from contaminated water in Napal :p).

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

I just noticed this part of your post, that is not true by any means! I don't know how to search for it but I'm sure there are countless examples documented and undocumented where unions have fought for rights and working conditions and fair practices!

Here's a recent example: CAW's list of demands for the McMaster nonacademic staff:



http://www.cawlocal555.ca/doclinks/Bulletin12.pdf

I will admit that just because I have never personally seen or heard of a union fighting for rights doesn't mean that the situation hasn't happened at some point during my lifetime. That said, I would hardly consider it to be a right to have the union involved in your employee evaluation (if I misunderstood the quote please correct me!) The university is the one paying them, they are the ones who should be evaluating the work. Why the union was previously involved in that at all is beyond me.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

I will admit that just because I have never personally seen or heard of a union fighting for rights doesn't mean that the situation hasn't happened at some point during my lifetime. That said, I would hardly consider it to be a right to have the union involved in your employee evaluation (if I misunderstood the quote please correct me!) The university is the one paying them, they are the ones who should be evaluating the work. Why the union was previously involved in that at all is beyond me.

They aren't 100% evaluating the work themselves, they are just involved in some fashion(observatory I presume) to see that the process is fair and there is no administrator bias. Its like having those appointed observers during ballot counting? That is assuming that they have nothing at all to do with directly affecting the ratings, I don't reckon they do since ratings are obviously done by department heads and an intermediary from 555 making a rating would make no sense since he hasn't had anything to do with the performance of Mr John Doe over the year, sooo I'm really betting on the fact that they just want to be part of the overall system at some capacity to ensure that all the processes/criterion's and methodologies are fair?

If one reads about labour conditions in Dubai, unions may not seem so useless.

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

They aren't 100% evaluating the work themselves, they are just involved in some fashion(observatory I presume) to see that the process is fair and there is no administrator bias. Its like having those appointed observers during ballot counting? That is assuming that they have nothing at all to do with directly affecting the ratings, I don't reckon they do since ratings are obviously done by department heads and an intermediary from 555 making a rating would make no sense since he hasn't had anything to do with the performance of Mr John Doe over the year, sooo I'm really betting on the fact that they just want to be part of the overall system at some capacity to ensure that all the processes/criterion's and methodologies are fair?

It actually turns out we were both wrong. The whole Joint Job Evaluation thing wasn't even about employee evaluations, it was about determining how much each job makes. Its also a relatively new thing, just being implemented in 2007.

Which again, is something that the CAW should have no part in.

As far as unions in India, they very well may still be necessary. I know nothing of Indian labour laws, and very little about the working conditions there. I think most of the arguments above only apply to North American unions.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

As far as unions in India, they very well may still be necessary. I know nothing of Indian labour laws, and very little about the working conditions there. I think most of the arguments above only apply to North American unions.

Dubai isn't India :p

Anyway, I thought this whole discussion was only about North American unions :/