Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have you ever worked for sociopaths? I have. They don't play by the rules, they aren't fair, and the power imbalance inherent in the employer-employee relationship means that they can turf you in an instant, for no good reason whatsoever, and it almost always takes people who are summarily dismissed a couple of months or more to land a similar role, suitable for their individual skill sets.
The courts invented the doctrine of notice (or pay in lieu thereof) to address this power imbalance and to make things more equitable. In short, notice is intended to prevent people from going without money and becoming destitute, something of which we need to be mindful in an era of stagnant wages and uncertain job prospects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
Employers should have the flexibility to lay off anyone they think are unnecessary or being unproductive. Such flexibility reduces business cost and improves overall productivity. If it difficult or impossible to fire someone, then companies are just stuck with people who are not qualified for the job -- what makes things worse is that the younger generation will have fewer opportunities.
With respect, I think you're missing something here. Employers, especially in non-union workplaces, already enjoy this flexibility. All they have to do is to give appropriate notice or pay in lieu thereof. Follow the steps, play fair, and you'll have the type of flexibility required.
If you strip away the requirement to give appropriate notice or pay in lieu thereof, however, it often leads to an in terrorem employment relationship, where the employer is an all-powerful overlord and the employees are cowered, brow-beaten subjugants. Not an ideal state of affairs, if you ask me. There often tends very little respect for employees in workplaces where such rules apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
at-will employment is the only employment format that makes sense in my opinion.
I do seriously doubt that you've worked for truly sociopathic employers. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but the confidence you display in your position makes me question whether you've ever worked for complete nutjobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
As to undocumented workers getting local jobs - I have no problem with that. If someone is willing to do the same work for 30% lower, we should be happy to give them the chance. Anything that helps to lower cost of running business is good for the economy.
Except these people are often vulnerable to exploitation due to their undocumented status. If we're going to let them work, then they have to be documented and they have to enjoy the same rights (and to be subject to the same responsibilities and obligations, naturally) as the rest of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
For example, why are all the infrastructure projects becoming increasingly expensive such that building a 20km subway costs multi-billion dollars often with huge cost overruns? Labour is too expensive, and because they are all unionized, they slack spend 4 hours finishing job that should take 3, and then they got the OT to get paid even more. If labour is not unionized and the government is free to hire whoever is qualified at market wage, all the projects will be significantly cheaper and faster, and this benefits all tax payers.
Construction often tends to be crooked from both sides of the table -- from some of the management and owners developing these projects and from some of the unionized labour being used to complete them. There isn't always an easy fix for this, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
If a typical Canadian can be easily replaced by an uneducated Mexican with less than 9 years of education who speak broken English, then this Canadian should think about what he could and should do to improve himself, instead of blaming others for driving wages lower. Being born in a rich country doesn't make anyone automatically deserve a better life - we all need to work hard for the life we want.
Have you ever worked construction? A glamourous easy job, it isn't.
It is just pitiful how much cheaper things are across the border (people do seem a bit stupider, though). A Sephore foundation that is $42 in the US is $51 in Canada. Another foundation by Revlon is $10 in US but $25 in Canada. Ben & Jerry's is $4 in US, 7.50 in Canada. Everything is a rip-off in comparison. But I notice US stores keep popping up, like Victoria's Secret, Wal-Mart, and the new Target. Does this mean Vancouver is headed toward increased affordability?
Long before we moved to the US we'd talk about Canadians being in a barrel, and the very, very rich basically had a shotgun shoved through the bunghole of the barrel. That's not changing because it's in the interests of money to keep it that way.
The higher price Canadians are paying is for infrastructure: new building leases, tax base increases, land improvements. But the net gain is for a handful of institutional funds and billionaires and it goes down the their bottomline.
Example: When Apple asked Rogers Wireless to allow their new iphone customers unlimited internet Rogers adamantly said NO. We've got these clients where we want them. And they're going to stay there. Finally,
it got so obvious and stupid that the Federal government had to do something about it, and allow new competition in this field.
"Country pricing"??? Please.
What really gets me is not the cost of cosmetics. It's that Canada produces the worlds best grain, dairy products, and has unlimited natural gas, but pays through the nose for things families and kids use. That should be an election issue.
Have you ever worked construction? A glamourous easy job, it isn't.
No I haven't.
I know it is not easy job, but let the market decide how much construction workers should be paid, not the government and its arbitary perception of "how much is enough". If what the market determined is not enough, then I am sorry, these workers are simply not good enough to live in Toronto - when they leave, labour supply shrinks, wage increases.
If a company is willing to pay $4 an hour and a worker is willing to accept that, government has no business meddling. just like it has no business in deciding whether RBC pays $1million or $20million bonus to its CEO. It is their money, their call.
The Canadian dollar has fallen by about 12%, against the US dollar, in the past year or so, so any prices that reflect a cost south of the border will be quite a bit higher than they were a year ago.
However, anything paid for with exchanged US dollars would now be quite a bit cheaper, as you can get 1.12$ Canadian for a US dollar.
Productivity doesn't matter. It is Economy Of Scale that matters. It is cheaper, per unit, to produce 100,000 jars of mayonnaise, than 10,000 jars. Also, consider that most of what people in BC consume has to be produced or processed in Ontario, and shipped 5,000 km. Productivity is not to blame for geography.
Speaking of geography, keep in mind that in all of Canada, a very large number of workers are seasonal, because a lot of work (building, road maintenance, natural resources) are impossible to carry through the winter. So the kind of productivity that Americans enjoy in the south and west is impossible to achieve, all other thins being equal.
More cars are made in Ontario than in Michigan, including about half the cars sold in Michigan. How do you call that lack of productivity?
You obviously do not know what "productivity" means. Economy of scale affects productivity.
From Wikipedia
" Productivity is the ratio of output to inputs in production; it is an average measure of the efficiency of production. Efficiency of production means production’s capability to create incomes which is measured by the formula real output value minus real input value.
Increasing national productivity can raise living standards because more real income improves people's ability to purchase goods and services, enjoy leisure, improve housing and education and contribute to social and environmental programs. Productivity growth also helps businesses to be more profitable."
so stupid. "The survey divided median housing prices in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, the U.K. and the U.S. against median gross household income to come up with its ratings."
OK, the survey looked at 9 countries, and concluded Vancouver is most expensive on the planet? IIs the planet that small?
I am pretty sure cities like Shanghai, Beijing, Mumbai are all more expensive. What about Monaco? Zurich? Paris? Those people in Shanghai will kill to spend $1M on a 4 bedroom freehold house with a backyard.
Plus, the news editor should know that Hong Kong is NOT a country, not to mention a western country. What the hell is a western country? Why are Singapore and Japan also considered "western"?
There are many good web sites that show the index of housing prices vs income for countries, cities, etc. Vancouver is much much higher than Seattle, San Diego, etc. but it is certainly not the highest in the world.
I don't know that unions do much, if anything, to explain the productivity gap, botticelli. While the rate of unionization is higher in Canada, no doubt about it, I'd suggest that competitive advantages offered by having a largely non-union workforce and at will employment laws in every American state other than Montana -- at will employment being a completely crazy concept in my opinion -- combined with higher investment in technology and automation in the United States, as well as a large undocumented pool of Mexicans and other non-American hispanics working illegally south of the border who are unwilling to kick up a fuss due to their status, may do significantly more to explain the productivity gap between Canada and the United States.
There is nothing wrong with "at will employment laws". The employer should be able to dismiss workers they don't want as long as it doesn't violate the "anti-discrimination laws" which are very strict in the US.
I tried to find some stats, but they are from 2004, so before the crisis. Also, I wonder if some of the minimum wage stats in the U.S. state what percentage work for less than minimum wage or live in states that did not have a minimum wage.
It gets even more complicated when you factor in different minimum wages for different jobs. Liquor servers etc.
Just numbers showing what percentage work for minimum wage don't tell the whole story. As I like to inform friends in Australia who brag about the lack of a tipping culture in Australia " We pay our waiters a living wage so they don't need tips " is the usual cry.
I counter with, true our wait staff may make 5 dollars less an hour, but they make more that most Australian wait staff when you count in the tips.
Food standard is a minefield. Are we talking about food quality or food safety? For food quality both countries do very well. I think when Canadians think about food quality compared to the U.S. they think of things like "Pink slime". That would never have been allowed in Canada. Also things like BGH ( bovine growth hormone) being legal in the U.S. Chocolate, meaning what each country can legally call chocolate. The UK's standard is higher than Canada's, and Canada's standard is higher than the U.S. Many Canadians find regular chocolate bars in the U.S. waxy.
Food safety…both countries, like everywhere have had issues. This from food safety.org
"Canada, with a population of 32 million, has approximately 10,000 reported cases of foodborne diseases each year and an estimated two million actual cases.3
In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S. CDC) estimates that foodborne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses annually among the country’s 294 million residents, as well as 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths per year. Known pathogens account for about 18 percent of the illnesses and 36 percent of the deaths, while unknown agents account for the rest. Three pathogens in particular, Salmonella, Listeria, and Toxoplasma, are estimated to cause 1,500 deaths each year.4
Since 1996, the U.S. CDC has been tracking well-known foodborne diseases through its FoodNet program and has reported a decline in major bacterial foodborne illnesses including Yersinia, Campylobacter, Escherichia coli"
Unlike Canada, the US has a Federal minimum wage that trumps the state if the state minimum wage is lower. In other words the minimum wage will always be at least as high as the federal minimum wage and may be higher if the state or city minimums are higher than the federal.
There is nothing wrong with "at will employment laws". The employer should be able to dismiss workers they don't want as long as it doesn't violate the "anti-discrimination laws" which are very strict in the US.
With the greatest of respect, Canadian courts have decided that there is something wrong with at will employment laws and they have acted, using equitable jurisdiction, to protect workers by requiring employers to furnish those employees they intend to dismiss with notice of such impending dismissal. Employers have to allow those employees so notified to continue working during the notice period or to offer pay in lieu of working that notice period. Such notice periods/payments are almost always longer than any notice periods required by statutory employment standards. I have worked for loonies in the past and they love to abuse their power to dismiss as a terror tool. Notice, for those who respect the law, does much to temper the volatility, the abusiveness, and the insane excesses of such loonies.
In some respects, the US legal system affords workers a bare minimum of legal rights. Its at will employment concepts are out of step with anywhere I have lived outside of the United States. Not much good can come from stripping workers of their rights and denying them reasonable protection from the actions of potentially callous and unreasonable employers. This is just my humble opinion on this matter.
With the greatest of respect, Canadian courts have decided that there is something wrong with at will employment laws and they have acted, using equitable jurisdiction, to protect workers by requiring employers to furnish those employees they intend to dismiss with notice of such impending dismissal. Employers have to allow those employees so notified to continue working during the notice period or to offer pay in lieu of working that notice period. Such notice periods/payments are almost always longer than any notice periods required by statutory employment standards. I have worked for loonies in the past and they love to abuse their power to dismiss as a terror tool. Notice, for those who respect the law, does much to temper the volatility, the abusiveness, and the insane excesses of such loonies.
In some respects, the US legal system affords workers a bare minimum of legal rights. Its at will employment concepts are out of step with anywhere I have lived outside of the United States. Not much good can come from stripping workers of their rights and denying them reasonable protection from the actions of potentially callous and unreasonable employers. This is just my humble opinion on this matter.
We will have to disagree then. I couldn't care less what the Canadian courts do or what happens in the rest of the world. Many countries have ridiculous laws making it very difficult to get rid of an employee. You sound like a typical union supporter.
We will have to disagree then. I couldn't care less what the Canadian courts do or what happens in the rest of the world. Many countries have ridiculous laws making it very difficult to get rid of an employee. You sound like a typical union supporter.
Your assumption is incorrect, but that's alright. It's perfectly fine to mistake people for who they really are. Folks seem to do that all the time on these City-Data forums.
While everyone is entitled to their opinion, I think that may be confusing the fairness concerns addressed by the concept of notice with difficulty to dismiss, with which you seem to be particularly concerned. In virtually all developed English speaking nations, most employers are free to can anyone, at any time, for any reason, it's just that in the absence of cause, it'll cost 'em a few bucks. Canada is no different in this regard.
North of your border, the vast majority of employers enjoy the right to can people without cause, provided they offer sufficient notice or pay in lieu of notice so that the soon-to-be terminated employees have a bit of a cushion in terms of time or cash to move on to the the next roughly comparable job. Allowances are normally made for age, length of service, and level of position. It doesn't strike me as being particularly unreasonable. In fact, it strikes me as being rather fair.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Canadians have always been in a barrel
