Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

It's a freebie and hard to justify Lemmy. Do you get bankable sick days? I don't.

Trying to justify this in a garbage strike isn't going to be easy.

   

It's not a freebie! The members pay for the benefit. Yes, I get bankable sick days, 20 per year. I can accumulated up to 200, which I already have. When I retire, I get paid for 50.

You're right, people are pissed because the city smells, but that has nothing to do with sick days. This strike was initiated by management as a cost cutting measure for a broke city. The workers aren't to blame. It's all on Miller and his counsil's irresponsible spending.

   

You get bankable sick days and you are all for them? Of course you are.

The members pay for the benefit? Really? Who pays the members?

CUPE 416 in Toronto are paid by the taxpayers. I wonder how many of those taxpayers, as a percentage, get bankable sick days?

Oh, and I agree this is Miller and his socialist chums fault, but it has highlighted 'benefits' that city workers enjoy at our cost that most of us don't get.

   

Not to necessarily take sides, but to play Devil's advocate, bankable sick days are negotiated into contracts often in lieu of salary or wages, the same way other employees negotiate their contracts with other "perks". Now, whether you agree with it as a "perk" is ones perogative, but its immmaterial whether you get it (I don't) in your job.

Moreover, I'm hoping that the same people that decry the "unions" are the same applying said beliefs to corporate welfare. If you're annoyed at bankable workdays, how about gross incompetence rewarded by a golden parachute and a taxpayer bailout? As i said before, this issue is on both sides of the economic coin

   

Oh I agree Mustang. Rewarding these guys with Masters that ran our economy to the ground is way worse.
I just believe in fairness. This bankable sick day thing thing just doesn't look fair.

   

Explain to me how workers are paying for their own sick days.

   

Actually, no I'm not in favour of them. Only people hired before 1998 get bankable sick days for retirement where I work. People hired after 1998 get a yearly RRSP contribution instead, which will amount to a lot more of a retirement payout for newer employees that I.



It's negotiated. Would you rather they didn't get sick days but got a higher salary? That would be the alternative. The reason benefits exist in colletively negotiated contracts is that they're beneficial to both sides. Sick leave is partly funded by the union through deductions, so management doesn't have to pay for it, and it's a benefit to unions because, since it's not income, it's not taxed. Both sides agree to these things for MUTUAL benefit.



You still aren't clear about what bankable sick days means. It's not free time off or full payment for it if it's not used. Percentage? I'd say it's small, less than 10%, if I had to guess.



How much enjoyment do you think 'sick days' gives people? If bankable sick days are such a wonderful thing, that those without it should begrudge those with it, then quit your job and apply for work on a garbage truck. They're hiring every day. It's like when my one kid cries because he didn't get a new Tonka truck, like his brother did, on the very day that HE got home from a $1600 10-day trip to summer camp. The grass is always greener....

   

Who pays the members Lemmy?

   

Because they accepted sick days instead of pay. They have it deducted from their salaries as part of their benefits packages, as I said, usually funded 50-50 by employee and employer.

   

Again, who pays the members Lemmy?

   

Depends on the union. In the case of public sector unions, the tax-payer pays.

   

Exactly. How many companies that compete in the market give bankable sick days?

Why should we as tax payers pay for this?

   

But you're missing the negotiation process. Let's go back in time and think about why they got bankable sick days. It went something like this:

Union: We want $25/hr.
Management: Forget it, we can't afford that
Union: Well, if we accept $20/hr, what additional benefit would you be willing to throw in to seal the deal?
Management: Well, how about 10 bankable sick days per year?
Union: Why would we want that? Most workers don't miss any more than 3 days per year.
Management: Well, let them bank up to 100 and if they don't abuse it, and stay on as employees with us for 35 years, we'll pay them out for 40 sick days when they retire.
Union: Forget it. You want us to take $5 less per hour to get back a months salary 35 years from now? Are you serious?
Management: That's what we're offering. Take or leave it.

What you fail to understand is that things like bankable sick days are MINISCULE expense to management (taxpayers) and a miniscule benefit. In Tpronto's current situation, if all they have to do is agree to the sick day request to the get the garbage cleaned up, if I were negotiating for management, I'd agree to it in a second and get the goddamn trashed cleared right away.

   

Which ever way you try to spin this, bankable sick days are not something most Canadians get, or are willing to pay for in their property taxes.

   

They should be willing to pay for them because it's saving them lots of tax dollars that would otherwise have to be paid in salary.

I think Tim Horton's employees should have to pay their own uniforms so that the price my coffee can be reduced by 1 cent.

I think cops should have to work 5 days a week instead of 4, like most Canadians.

I think Molson should give everyone a free case of beer a week, not just their own employees.

I think we should all get our summers off like teachers.

"Honey, did you get a raise?"
"No dear, I went in and asked for one, but the boss promoted me instead"
"So what does your new job pay?"
"Same as the old one, but now I'm Assistant Executive Vice President in charge of paperclips"

That's what bankable sick days are...a meaningless throw-in instead of anything tangible.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next