...Now then, I was misinformed of the pay rate of TTC workers, who actually earn from $17 to $24.32 an hour, so I will give you that. BUT - that is still a fair amount for someone who doesn't do really hard labour. True, their jobs might involve fighting off homeless people and paying constant atention, but so does mine, and I do it while on my feet and for a pitiful $7.70 per hour.
Granted. But why tear down those who are doing (reasonably) well, because you are not? I'm reminded of a cousin of mine, a most entrepreneurial type, who used to bitch about "welfare bums". My response was, "Well, if their lot is so cushy, why don't you join them?" (This was back in the day when welfare actually provided a - barely - subsistence income.)
Of course, he wanted a lot more than welfare would provide, so it wasn't an option for him.
Working at a grocery store isn't really comparable to driving a subway, but theirs is definitely cushier than mine. 50 K a year is not going to make anyone rich, nor should it, being given to someone who hasn't had to receive higher learning or a specific degree to work that job. Hell, I'm going into journalism, and am getting a degree for it, and I'll still be lucky to make that much.
Then obviously you're not going into journalism for the money, you're going into it because you have a passion - or at least a strong interest - in it. If you just want to earn 50K at a "cushy" job, you should become a bus driver.
Unions are a necessity, but you have to admit that some unions promote slacking off because it is so difficult to get fired...
Absolutely. It seems (sadly) to be a human given that any group will look towards its own, short-term interest, ahead of the general, long-term, greater good.
But I don't see that excesses are reason to do away with unions, any more than the Sponsorship scandal is readon to do away with democracy.
I've seen the paperwork involved with the unions at my work, and it's ridiculous sometimes...
In my experience (which is limited to only a few unionized workplaces, granted), the fault is largely management's. First, they agreed to ridiculously onerous procedures for firing an incompetent employee and, second, the line-managers didn't do their job and follow those procedures.
The thing is, what the TTC workers are fighting against isn't all that serious. If they were being grossly mistreated, then I would fully support their right to strike and gladly walk to work...
It sounds like you're saying that the "right" to strike should only be a right if you think the union (meaning the membership) is taking a sensible position. Otherwise, the "right" should be withdrawn.
To which wise mind will you grant that judgement call?
And the TTC is essential in this city, because with the 1.4 million or whatever people in their cars on the roads, traffic would be so that ambulances, firetrucks, and police cars couldn't function to do their jobs. Add to that the amount of pedestrian homicides, and occurences of road rage, blablabla. I wasn't here in 1999, but I have seen it when there was a power outage for a half hour at Yonge and Dundas, and that in itself was chaos. The "neccessary" services can't function without the TTC in proper functioning order.
I was here during that strike and - amazingly enough - the city didn't fall apart during it. ("Pedestrian homicides?")
In short, let's agree to disagree, and if I made no sense, ask me to clarify, because I have had to pee really bad for the past 20 minutes and don't care enough to look this over...
Consider my responses just that request for clarification.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-12 12:27 am (UTC)Granted. But why tear down those who are doing (reasonably) well, because you are not? I'm reminded of a cousin of mine, a most entrepreneurial type, who used to bitch about "welfare bums". My response was, "Well, if their lot is so cushy, why don't you join them?" (This was back in the day when welfare actually provided a - barely - subsistence income.)
Of course, he wanted a lot more than welfare would provide, so it wasn't an option for him.
Working at a grocery store isn't really comparable to driving a subway, but theirs is definitely cushier than mine. 50 K a year is not going to make anyone rich, nor should it, being given to someone who hasn't had to receive higher learning or a specific degree to work that job. Hell, I'm going into journalism, and am getting a degree for it, and I'll still be lucky to make that much.
Then obviously you're not going into journalism for the money, you're going into it because you have a passion - or at least a strong interest - in it. If you just want to earn 50K at a "cushy" job, you should become a bus driver.
Unions are a necessity, but you have to admit that some unions promote slacking off because it is so difficult to get fired...
Absolutely. It seems (sadly) to be a human given that any group will look towards its own, short-term interest, ahead of the general, long-term, greater good.
But I don't see that excesses are reason to do away with unions, any more than the Sponsorship scandal is readon to do away with democracy.
I've seen the paperwork involved with the unions at my work, and it's ridiculous sometimes...
In my experience (which is limited to only a few unionized workplaces, granted), the fault is largely management's. First, they agreed to ridiculously onerous procedures for firing an incompetent employee and, second, the line-managers didn't do their job and follow those procedures.
The thing is, what the TTC workers are fighting against isn't all that serious. If they were being grossly mistreated, then I would fully support their right to strike and gladly walk to work...
It sounds like you're saying that the "right" to strike should only be a right if you think the union (meaning the membership) is taking a sensible position. Otherwise, the "right" should be withdrawn.
To which wise mind will you grant that judgement call?
And the TTC is essential in this city, because with the 1.4 million or whatever people in their cars on the roads, traffic would be so that ambulances, firetrucks, and police cars couldn't function to do their jobs. Add to that the amount of pedestrian homicides, and occurences of road rage, blablabla. I wasn't here in 1999, but I have seen it when there was a power outage for a half hour at Yonge and Dundas, and that in itself was chaos. The "neccessary" services can't function without the TTC in proper functioning order.
I was here during that strike and - amazingly enough - the city didn't fall apart during it. ("Pedestrian homicides?")
In short, let's agree to disagree, and if I made no sense, ask me to clarify, because I have had to pee really bad for the past 20 minutes and don't care enough to look this over...
Consider my responses just that request for clarification.