Foreign Service - Strike?

[amikety]

I dont think its a simple matter of fairness.

When people strike in industry, the number 1 affected group is the business therefore the profits of that particular company. If teachers strike it is direct canadians who are impacted and therefore action is taken promptly.

When a union like the FSO calls a strike, the direct impact is not on the government or on mass canadians. It is primarily on the group of people applying to come into canada ergo the action is very slow and progress limited. Yes equal pay equal work etc that is true. But, those affected cannot simply be used as hostages when they really cannot control the outcome. Again when teachers strike, parents do control the outcome because it is in canada. What can an immigration applicant really do? There is an amount of bullying in play also from their end. It is not one sided.

Just a couple points to consider:

- Not all citizens care if teachers strike, as per your example. If the teachers here strike, I couldn't give a flip. It doesn't effect me. So citizens can be apathetic towards strike action as well. (Not trying to be mean towards teachers, but I don't have kids. My level of engagement is 0ish. I do believe it's an undervalued profession by society at large though.) Air Canada's flight attendants want to go on strike? Sure, go for it. I don't care about that either. Not only do I hate flying, but AC is so overpriced, it's ridiculous - so even I were to need to fly, I would pick a different carrier. It wouldn't effect me.

- There are people and organizations beside the immigrant (and his Canadian sponsor if there is one) that are concerned about strike action. Just for some examples - Universities that recruit foreign students. Companies that regularly hire foreign workers - especially near the Arctic Circle, where bringing in a TFW may be the only way to fill a job. Universities and large businesses have considerable political pull and money to 'fight the fight.' All I am saying is there are more concerned than just the poor guy who mailed his PNP application two months ago.

On the other hand, this strike with CIC does effect me (potentially). Do I care? Maybe I'm a little too Bhuddist for my own good, but I know it will pass and things will fall into place sooner or later. Not going to stress about it. I have university classes to deal with and my own body to fight. That's enough for me.

 

[inLinE6]

This is easily the most ignorant and uniformed statement I have read so far concerning this job action and unionized labour.

1) Unfair wages and unsafe work environments still exist in 1st world countries.
2) Please show me where your data is to compare the quality of unionized labour and labour in the private sector.
3) There is no free market. it was killed off by Corporations.
4) Governments provide services that the private sector cannot manage due to security/privacy issues or simply because there is no profit in it. privatize any government service and 20% of the workers get laid off, services goes down and the costs to receive the service go up.
5) Your friend is essentially self-employed.

Calling my comment ignorant is ignorant itself, but I still respect your comment.

1) I admitted there's unfairness here or there. Very valid point. But as I said, it's personal choice. You have the option not to take such position. And I personally don't think government employees are taking unfair wages or working in unsafe environment. This is weak argument.
2) No data. No hard evidence. I've worked in both unionized and un-unionized environments. If you have data, prove that I'm wrong.
3) No free market? All these terms are relative and to certain extent. You can choose where or how to work, if you have the required skill set. Not true? To make my point valid I went back to the original news and the CIC employees were requesting salary raise on par with lawyers and economists. Do you feel robbed if you work as lawyers or economists? You don't need JD or Ph.D in economics to work for CIC. There's a reason why people are paid differently. Equal pay is not "fair".
4) Government can't be privatized but individual can choose to work for government or private sector.
5) Not true, but it doesn't matter. It's an example anyways.

Instead of calling someone "ignorant" next time, try to make some valid points. I'm not against you or trying to be harsh on your comment. I found no offense or aggressiveness to anyone from my comments. If you or someone you know are on strike, I'm certainly not targeting you (or anyone you know). As I've stated clearly, I respect those who hold opposite opinions and want equal respect.

 

[nanediniz]

http://www.cicsimmigration.com/canadian-for/

 

[CanadianJeepGuy]

Calling my comment ignorant is ignorant itself, but I still respect your comment.

1) I admitted there's unfairness here or there. Very valid point. But as I said, it's personal choice. You have the option not to take such position. And I personally don't think government employees are taking unfair wages or working in unsafe environment. This is weak argument.
2) No data. No hard evidence. I've worked in both unionized and un-unionized environments. If you have data, prove that I'm wrong.
3) No free market? All these terms are relative and to certain extent. You can choose where or how to work, if you have the required skill set. Not true? To make my point valid I went back to the original news and the CIC employees were requesting salary raise on par with lawyers and economists. Do you feel robbed if you work as lawyers or economists? You don't need JD or Ph.D in economics to work for CIC. There's a reason why people are paid differently. Equal pay is not "fair".
4) Government can't be privatized but individual can choose to work for government or private sector.
5) Not true, but it doesn't matter. It's an example anyways.

Instead of calling someone "ignorant" next time, try to make some valid points. I'm not against you or trying to be harsh on your comment. I found no offense or aggressiveness to anyone from my comments. If you or someone you know are on strike, I'm certainly not targeting you (or anyone you know). As I've stated clearly, I respect those who hold opposite opinions and want equal respect.

You made statements based upon your own uniformed opinion. That is what is ignorant. I did not call you ignorant.

You basically say that if someone doesn't like what they are paid they can just quit and go work somewhere else. This is also ignorant. Work is there to be done. Those that have been trained to do the work should be paid what others doing the same work would get paid. It doesn't matter if they are a clerk, lawyer, accountant or chicken plucker.
You have made claims that government is inefficient. You have made claims that there is a little bit of unfairness here and there but make no mention of any specifics.....and you ask me to prove you wrong? That's pretty lazy.

The government has forced this job action by failing to negotiate in good faith. I gave you 5 valid points. You reply with nothing.


http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/2011/co-gp-20110913.html#Executive%20Summary

 

[inLinE6]

You made statements based upon your own uniformed opinion. That is what is ignorant. I did not call you ignorant.

You basically say that if someone doesn't like what they are paid they can just quit and go work somewhere else. This is also ignorant. Work is there to be done. Those that have been trained to do the work should be paid what others doing the same work would get paid. It doesn't matter if they are a clerk, lawyer, accountant or chicken plucker.
You have made claims that government is inefficient. You have made claims that there is a little bit of unfairness here and there but make no mention of any specifics.....and you ask me to prove you wrong? That's pretty lazy.

The government has forced this job action by failing to negotiate in good faith. I gave you 5 valid points. You reply with nothing.

OK my friend. I replied with nothing and all my comments were ignorant? Get yourself some education and think about how labor system works. If you feel this is unfair and decide to move on, someone else will step in and happily take your position. In a year if he feels unsatisfied with the pay and decide to move on, another person will fill in. If the pay is truly under average, the employer would eventually get signaled by quick turnovers on the same position and increased training overhead. They'll respond by adjusting the salary and try to retain long-term employee to reduce the cost. This is how the system supposed to function - people are making rational decisions. The truth is, their employees are unhappy with their jobs but not many decide to quit. Why? Because they're enjoying the benefits that other places may not be able to offer. They get good enough pay that they have no incentive to leave the job. Another truth, lawyers, doctors, and economists are making more money. Get the degree and switch industry. All options are on the table. Why striking?

I made my "ignorant" statement clear enough so I'm not going to respond to your further comments. It's not effecting me and not my business. Happy striking.

 

[CanadianJeepGuy]

OK my friend. I replied with nothing and all my comments were ignorant? Get yourself some education and think about how labor system works. If you feel this is unfair and decide to move on, someone else will step in and happily take your position. In a year if he feels unsatisfied with the pay and decide to move on, another person will fill in. If the pay is truly under average, the employer would eventually get signaled by quick turnovers on the same position and increased training overhead. They'll respond by adjusting the salary and try to retain long-term employee to reduce the cost. This is how the system supposed to function - people are making rational decisions. The truth is, their employees are unhappy with their jobs but not many decide to quit. Why? Because they're enjoying the benefits that other places may not be able to offer. They get good enough pay that they have no incentive to leave the job. Another truth, lawyers, doctors, and economists are making more money. Get the degree and switch industry. All options are on the table. Why striking?

I made my "ignorant" statement clear enough so I'm not going to respond to your further comments. It's not effecting me and not my business. Happy striking.

That's a great model if you are running a McDonald's. These positions are not low skilled service jobs. The cost to both the individual and the government to treat these positions as transient is enormous.

What you seem to miss is that their peers in other government departments make more for doing the same job. They are not being given the true value of their labour and they are being denied their right to negotiate for it.

 

[yukon1970]

you can spout all the statistics, graphs, and opinions you want. it doesn't change the fact that thousands of people are being wrongly affected by this strike and being caused unjust financial, mental, and emotional grief and undue hardships.

 

[scos]

Just my 2 cents.

It's not a simple matter of "fairness". Striking in 30 years ago is a way of fighting against unequal treatment. But this no longer exists in modern capitalized society. I admit there's still unfairness here or there, but the majority of striking today, is to protect sluggishness and low efficiency, which is a negative thing.

Bottom line, take it or leave it. You're paid for this amount because you only deserve such amount. It's free labor market today, and there're tons of other high-paid jobs available. You're free to pursue any of them as you wish (which was not true 30 years ago). Not capable of taking high-paid positions is not anybody's fault. Why bother striking? Get a better education or advanced training, quit that darn job and do something else to make more money. What if someone's truly enjoying such job, not willing to move on, but not content with the pay? Well, my friend graduated from top university but instead of finding a formal job, he plays guitar in a bar with limited income. He thought that's what he enjoys even the pay was low. He never complained or striked!

To me, striking is more like hi-jacking, period.

What planet do you live on? The whole reason for this strike is the current government and their policies. You know how many visa offices have closed with no new hiring to cover the increased workload at those that remain? Do you realize the government has been bargaining in bad faith when it even bargains at all? And as for your friend, the reason he doesn't strike is because as a member of a band he is MANAGEMENT. Who is he going to strike against? And if he simply works for the bar as a musician then he knew going in the pay was bad. But if he wants to unionize the musicians there, that is his right (you do realize a lot of the entertainment business is unionized?).

The strike is inconvenient for us since it slows down an already slow process, and yes, there are a lot of fraudsters who gum up the system. But lets not forget who started the whole mess to begin with. It is the current government. So address your annoyance and frustration to Jason Kenney and Stephen Harper.

And finally, be thankful that the union seems to be targeting tourist and FSW visas. This is where the government and its backers make money and will hurt the most. They are not directly targeting us. Of course the government is pulling people off of our processing to give those areas more coverage. So as you can see, the government really doesn't care about family class or they wouldn't do this (again, considering how long our waits are already).

 

[scos]

OK my friend. I replied with nothing and all my comments were ignorant? Get yourself some education and think about how labor system works. If you feel this is unfair and decide to move on, someone else will step in and happily take your position. In a year if he feels unsatisfied with the pay and decide to move on, another person will fill in. If the pay is truly under average, the employer would eventually get signaled by quick turnovers on the same position and increased training overhead. They'll respond by adjusting the salary and try to retain long-term employee to reduce the cost. This is how the system supposed to function - people are making rational decisions. The truth is, their employees are unhappy with their jobs but not many decide to quit. Why? Because they're enjoying the benefits that other places may not be able to offer. They get good enough pay that they have no incentive to leave the job. Another truth, lawyers, doctors, and economists are making more money. Get the degree and switch industry. All options are on the table. Why striking?

I made my "ignorant" statement clear enough so I'm not going to respond to your further comments. It's not effecting me and not my business. Happy striking.

In a closed system that would work. But when the government is allowing cheaper foreign labour to enter the market for the benefit of those employers then wages will NEVER rise. Why do you think people got upset over RBC and their recent attempt to reduce labour costs? All that will do is create a race to the bottom. Sure, it is great for the rich, the CEOs, and the stockholders. But it is terrible for everyone else, which is the majority of Canadians. Wages will go down, tax revenues will go down, services will go down. If you want a look at the future in that scenario just look to the south. Do you want to live in that society? I know I don't.

 

[waiting1234]

A strike/grievance should impact the people causing the grievance and not a 3rd party. Why are they paid less? I dont know. Frankly I think there may be some merit in the Gov't using cost of living as a basis of showing how parity is obtained. Maybe they are paid some allowances like housing (from some links it seemed so). I dont know honestly. Just throwing salary figures is not how equality is seen.

 

[CanadianJeepGuy]

A strike/grievance should impact the people causing the grievance and not a 3rd party. Why are they paid less? I dont know. Frankly I think there may be some merit in the Gov't using cost of living as a basis of showing how parity is obtained. Maybe they are paid some allowances like housing (from some links it seemed so). I dont know honestly. Just throwing salary figures is not how equality is seen.

The labour action is impacting the government....through you.

 

[costaudjoe]

A strike/grievance should impact the people causing the grievance and not a 3rd party. Why are they paid less? I dont know. Frankly I think there may be some merit in the Gov't using cost of living as a basis of showing how parity is obtained. Maybe they are paid some allowances like housing (from some links it seemed so). I dont know honestly. Just throwing salary figures is not how equality is seen.

Actually that is simply not true.

Most strikes have an impact on a third party. Transit workers, airline pilots, postal workers, teachers, etc. the list is long. They all affect the lives of others when they go on strike (and do not have a direct impact on upper management). This is where the true market value kicks in. The more the service is missed the more we are willing to pay for it. This is why I begrudge the current government for legislating postal workers and Air Canada workers back to work. Allowing the strikes to go ahead is a reality check of what the market is willing to bear.

As to the PAFSO demands, I find them more than reasonable. Equal pay for equal work. It ain't rocket science. Flip, they could even be asking for more pay than their Canadian counterparts. It is a very common practice in the private sector for companies to pay their employees MORE to work abroad. Paying them MORE is an incentive for the employees to uproot themselves and their families and live in a foreign land. But to pay them less???? That is pure nonsense.

Truth be told, the government is negotiating in bad faith. They have only come to the table once. They came with a paltry offer. And since then they have refused to return to the table. All they can do is spew the same spin: "these are lucrative and highly sought after jobs". But if you have two neurons sparking in your cranium then you know this is a red herring. A CEO position is also a lucrative and highly sought after job, but more to the point what is the pay that one merits for doing that job.

 

[costaudjoe]

In a year if he feels unsatisfied with the pay and decide to move on, another person will fill in. If the pay is truly under average, the employer would eventually get signaled by quick turnovers on the same position and increased training overhead. They'll respond by adjusting the salary and try to retain long-term employee to reduce the cost. This is how the system supposed to function - people are making rational decisions. The truth is, their employees are unhappy with their jobs but not many decide to quit. Why? Because they're enjoying the benefits that other places may not be able to offer. They get good enough pay that they have no incentive to leave the job. Another truth, lawyers, doctors, and economists are making more money. Get the degree and switch industry. All options are on the table. Why striking?

No disrespect but you obviously have never taken an HR course or worked in HR before.

Do you have any idea the cost associated with training an employee? The costs associated with turnover? We are talking about months of lost salary while waiting for a trainee to get up to speed (not to mention the effect on other employees who help out). Quite simply, it is in the interest of the government to keep employees on who are experienced and can do the job EFFICIENTLY. I would say this is even more important with those who are the gatekeepers ie those who are accepting or rejecting immigration applications. Do you really want a revolving door of trainees admitting people to Canada???

 

[waiting1234]

when an airline crew strikes there is enough backlash to force action.

where will the backlash for this strike come from. Where are the numbers? The media even isnt as caught up in this. This is a bully me and ill bully the next guy theme written all over it. You can rationalize all you want about the pay but when you accept a job you know what you are getting into. Yes they deserve a pay raise, and yes equal pay, but dont allowances count as pay. From what I hear, accomodation is provided. What is the cost of that?

 

[costaudjoe]

The backlash will come from many places. People on this forum have been encouraged by myself and Canadianjeepguy to submit a letter (examples given early on in this thread) to their MP (the issue has been presented in the HOC already). The strike is having an impact on tourism and the economy in general as visas are being processed, if at all, slowly. Whenever Harper goes abroad, the people on the ground where he goes (the diplomats) are refusing to work. The effects are cumulative and take time. How many black eyes can Stephen Harper/Tony Clement take? It is very RARE for strikes to be resolved in the first 24 hours. We are talking about months here.

As per the PAFSO's demands, I highly recommend you read their collective agreement and look at their demands, you have formed an opinion on hearsay. Also, it is quite foolish to say that they took the job knowing what it was about. This is a very static vision of the world. They negotiated their collective agreement more than 6 years ago (the last two have been WITHOUT a contract). The CIC negotiated theirs more recently. At the risk of repeating myself, it is acceptable for PAFSO to expect equal pay for equal work.

I would like to add that recently the government bumped up the costs of passports. The reasoning was that the fees we paid were not covering the costs. It may be that a possible solution is that the fees we pay for sponsoring family members are also increased to cover the costs involved in processing the applications. However, the truth is this government is so adverse to unions they are unable to propose anything tangible and instead try to spin their way out of it.