MLSE Strike

[Darien]

According to their reddit AMA, the employees are being hit with pay rollbacks from 18 dollars an hour to around 11. Dunno about you, but a near 50% pay cut when MLSE is making a profit seems pretty harsh. Everyone thinks it will never happen to them.

[Nilanka]

According to their reddit AMA, the employees are being hit with pay rollbacks from 18 dollars an hour to around 11. Dunno about you, but a near 50% pay cut when MLSE is making a profit seems pretty harsh. Everyone thinks it will never happen to them.

What's minimum wage these days? $10.25?

Somehow, the drop to $11.00 doesn't sound believable.

[stooley]

According to their reddit AMA, the employees are being hit with pay rollbacks from 18 dollars an hour to around 11. Dunno about you, but a near 50% pay cut when MLSE is making a profit seems pretty harsh. Everyone thinks it will never happen to them.

But that's the thing. They don't specifically say what they were making before. Those numbers were just used as examples.

I'd need to see what they're making compared to other stadium employees, and what they're making relative to people in the restaurant/theatre industry and much more.

I'm not siding with one group. Just saying there's a lack of information, and paycuts are all relative.

[Uncle_Si]

I hope that's not the case. It seems a little suspect to me. Depending on who issued the release they could be focusing on a small sample of the work force and applying it to the whole work force in an attempt to gain public sympathy. I'm always weary of negotiations on both sides and am of the belief that you can not negotiate in good faith in public.

I will reserve judgement on both sides because we really have no idea about the intricacies of their employment contract, MLSE's budget for salary etc etc, and nor should we. PEACE

[planetmars]

What I would want to know is what an average MLE employee does. Is it a skill that not a lot of people have? Could anyone off the streets for example do what they do? MLSE is a corporation first and if they feel they can get the same type of work for less then they will try. Why else do most corporations out source to countries like India and China?

Most corporations do not act with moral intentions, so it doesn't surprise me. Hopefully these MLSE workers can find better jobs elsewhere assuming they can't live with those pay cuts.

[Nilanka]

What I would want to know is what an average MLE employee does. Is it a skill that not a lot of people have? Could anyone off the streets for example do what they do? MLSE is a corporation first and if they feel they can get the same type of work for less then they will try. Why else do most corporations out source to countries like India and China?

Most corporations do not act with moral intentions, so it doesn't surprise me. Hopefully these MLSE workers can find better jobs elsewhere assuming they can't live with those pay cuts.

We've lost touch over the years, but I used to know one of the chefs at the ACC. He had a culinary background, but I wouldn't say he was more skilled than a chef at a local pub. The wings and stir-fries were good, but nothing that would make me say he was irreplaceable.

[Gorlitzer]

So what if he did vote for Rob Ford? What does that have to do with anything. His point is perfectly valid and right. You are worth what the free market says you are worth. Unfortunately for many people right now their are more people looking for jobs than their are jobs available . You have very little footing to negotiate. Just look at the condo market in Toronto, prices are leveling off and dropping in some cases because of excess supply.

Stomping your feet and pouting will get you no sympathy from me. Ya MLSE is rich and they are built on the people in the company. As such MLSE and the market puts a price on that value. If the workers feel undervalued fine. Quit. No one is forcing you to work there. If enough people leave maybe MLSE will Re evaluate. As of right now I'm sure many people on this forum and many people in Toronto would love to have the opportunity to work for MLSE, maybe even work for less than they could get somewhere else. So be it. Like it or not that's where we are today. In the future you will have more bargaining power but as of right now I don't see much. It's a matter of timing and where the markets are. I understand the usefulness of a Union but I also understand that no matter what the unions demand it's the markets in the end that have the last say.

You are right... the Rob Ford dig was a bit unnecessary. I just wonder why some of us are so quick to say "so be it" when it comes to this kind of thing. I am not content to endorse this race to the bottom of workers wages. It doesn't need to be said that the middle class is slipping away in this country, with manufacturing jobs declining, a big portion of the "unskilled" workforce relies on service jobs to make a living. Healthy wages for service jobs is critical in maintaining our standing as a world-class country. I many of us have supported MLSE almost unconditionally as Raptors fans. Why not support extend that same unconditional support to hard working men and women?

[stooley]

What I would want to know is what an average MLE employee does. Is it a skill that not a lot of people have? Could anyone off the streets for example do what they do? MLSE is a corporation first and if they feel they can get the same type of work for less then they will try. Why else do most corporations out source to countries like India and China?

Most corporations do not act with moral intentions, so it doesn't surprise me. Hopefully these MLSE workers can find better jobs elsewhere assuming they can't live with those pay cuts.

So since this thread is so far off topic, I'm going start this up while I can.

I think it's really, really hard to say what good moral intentions should be for a corporation. Corporations are owned by shareholders. People like you and me and pension funds like the CPP. The primary goal of the corporation upon it's founding is to earn a profit for those people. After all, they invested their money to buy assets, hire employees, etc.

For example, if you're saving for retirement and invested your hard earned money into a mutual fund, or a hedge fund, or even just have it earning interest in the bank, there is a strong chance that you own stake in Rogers or Bell. You, of course, want to see that money grow to be as large as possible.

This is not to mention the existence of market forces, which seem like a relatively fair way to determine a worker's value.

In certain circumstances, labor laws are required. In a monopsony (monopoly) when there is only one employer for a certain skill, then that power can be used to abuse employees.

I strongly think that the majority of the stadium workers operate in market that is highly diversified. The skills they provide, like professional behaviour, charm, whatever, can be used at restaurants, theaters, retail, etc.

The one group who could be being screwed over are the guys who change the ice to the hardwood. That seems like a specific skill that would take some training to master, that they can't really use ANYwhere else

[Uncle_Si]

So since this thread is so far off topic, I'm going start this up while I can.

I think it's really, really hard to say what good moral intentions should be for a corporation. Corporations are owned by shareholders. People like you and me and pension funds like the CPP. The primary goal of the corporation upon it's founding is to earn a profit for those people. After all, they invested their money to buy assets, hire employees, etc.

For example, if you're saving for retirement and invested your hard earned money into a mutual fund, or a hedge fund, or even just have it earning interest in the bank, there is a strong chance that you own stake in Rogers or Bell. You, of course, want to see that money grow to be as large as possible.

This is not to mention the existence of market forces, which seem like a relatively fair way to determine a worker's value.

In certain circumstances, labor laws are required. In a monopsony (monopoly) when there is only one employer for a certain skill, then that power can be used to abuse employees.

I strongly think that the majority of the stadium workers operate in market that is highly diversified. The skills they provide, like professional behaviour, charm, whatever, can be used at restaurants, theaters, retail, etc.

The one group who could be being screwed over are the guys who change the ice to the hardwood. That seems like a specific skill that would take some training to master, that they can't really use ANYwhere else

Great point! It's sometimes ironic to see unions demanding hire wages from corporations when unions pension funds are so heavily invested in them. I guess there are extremes on both sides which allow most of us to think and operate somewhere in the middle. The biggest problem facing many countries today is when governments involve themselves through legislation that doesn't always end up with the desired results or a new problem is created as a result of said legislation.

[stooley]

Great point! It's sometimes ironic to see unions demanding hire wages from corporations when unions pension funds are so heavily invested in them. I guess there are extremes on both sides which allow most of us to think and operate somewhere in the middle. The biggest problem facing many countries today is when governments involve themselves through legislation that doesn't always end up with the desired results or a new problem is created as a result of said legislation.

Not to mention that lower costs MAY lead to decreased ticket prices (or less increased prices) which would draw more fans to the stadium. This brings more utility to the viewers, and may even result in more tips for the workers.

[Gorlitzer]

Great point! It's sometimes ironic to see unions demanding hire wages from corporations when unions pension funds are so heavily invested in them. I guess there are extremes on both sides which allow most of us to think and operate somewhere in the middle. The biggest problem facing many countries today is when governments involve themselves through legislation that doesn't always end up with the desired results or a new problem is created as a result of said legislation.

True. But what about the times that the desired result is achieved. That happens too. I really just want someone on this thread to explain why they support MLSE paying people less, rather than more. We all contribute to their largess so we should exercise our voice when issues like this come up. We will spill endless amounts of ink and pixles over whether player X gets $10 million or $12 million, but shouldn't we also care about whether people with families, and dreams and bills to pay get $12 dollars and hour or $18 dollars an hour?

[stooley]

True. But what about the times that the desired result is achieved. That happens too. I really just want someone on this thread to explain why they support MLSE paying people less, rather than more. We all contribute to their largess so we should exercise our voice when issues like this come up. We will spill endless amounts of ink and pixles over whether player X gets $10 million or $12 million, but shouldn't we also care about whether people with families, and dreams and bills to pay get $12 dollars and hour or $18 dollars an hour?

Of course those things matter. But I think it also matters that society is built on a system that encourages the betterment of itself. Look at our lifestyles now and compare them to how people lived 300 years ago. We are so privileged as people, even those that are less fortunate.

And we should strive for a better society, but not by handing out money case by case, because there are budgets. Situations like these should cause you to look at the system as a whole, and determine which parts are flawed. And there are problems, but handing out money case by case isn't an efficient way to solve them.

[Uncle_Si]

It's not about us wanting them to pay them more or less. It's about them being payed what they are worth. I think where the public comes into play is in workplace related issues (where u have to be really careful in judging) but issues involving poor working conditions, unsafe working conditions or documented abuse, racism, sexism etc. There we can all be involved and should. BUT by all accounts that is not the case whatsoever MLSE seems to be an amazing place to work and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Issues related to pay are not our problems.

I agree that there may be instances where government legislation works. The problem is we will never actually know. Markets are much too complicated to fully understand the effects of legislation in the short and long term because they can't be looked at in a vacuum. Woah were getting into some deep ish now lol.

[Craiger]

So what if he did vote for Rob Ford? What does that have to do with anything. His point is perfectly valid and right. You are worth what the free market says you are worth. Unfortunately for many people right now their are more people looking for jobs than their are jobs available . You have very little footing to negotiate. Just look at the condo market in Toronto, prices are leveling off and dropping in some cases because of excess supply.

Stomping your feet and pouting will get you no sympathy from me. Ya MLSE is rich and they are built on the people in the company. As such MLSE and the market puts a price on that value. If the workers feel undervalued fine. Quit. No one is forcing you to work there. If enough people leave maybe MLSE will Re evaluate. As of right now I'm sure many people on this forum and many people in Toronto would love to have the opportunity to work for MLSE, maybe even work for less than they could get somewhere else. So be it. Like it or not that's where we are today. In the future you will have more bargaining power but as of right now I don't see much. It's a matter of timing and where the markets are. I understand the usefulness of a Union but I also understand that no matter what the unions demand it's the markets in the end that have the last say.

Here is a question. Does the free market pay you what you are worth, or does it pay you the minimum amount it can to ensure the preservation and growth of capitol and therefore its own survival as long as possible? Understand these aren't the same things, even though early on you are taught that they are.

Without sounding to marxist, the free market (the greed of the free market anyways) is a parasite that eventually eats itself into oblivion. It only has one logical conclusion if allowed to run unchecked, and that is the elimination of the free market and therefore its own destruction.

The free market is based on greed, as such it requires people to constantly accumulate more and more capitol. If they don't, someone else will eventually price them out of the market. You will reach a point where the only way to accumulate more capitol is to control the market (and therefore no longer have a free market). To make things more micro, one way to maximize your capitol growth is to minimize your cost of labour. You want to pay them as little as you can.

Ofcourse labour is trying to do the exact same thing. Its trying to accumulate as much of its own capitol as possible, because if it doesn't they will eventually be priced out of the market (they won't be able to afford to survive). Eventually it reaches a point where the only way for it to accumulate more capitol is to control the market itself... the end result is unions.

To get technical, unions are as free market as capitol is. Its is a spawn of capitalism.

Its a strange paradox. You give someone a free market, and eventually the only guarantee is that the market will no longer be free.

In the end, labour has the ultimate power. Capitol is meaningless without someone/something to use it on, and thats labour. As long as labour is willing to stick together, they can ALWAYS win the fight because it is always needed and will be, at the very least, the last survivor. The only way they don't is if that freedom to unionize is taken away from them. Which ofcourse means, the market is no longer free or was never actually free in the first place.

They are trying to slay the same dragon everyone else is (someone else's greed). It takes an enourmous amount of risk and sacrifice to do it and survive.

Doesn't mean I won't find it incredibly inconvient!! Since I'm a greedy human also, its makes unsympathetic towards their battle.... until the day it benifits me ofcourse

[stooley]

Here is a question. Does the free market pay you what you are worth, or does it pay you the minimum amount it can to ensure the preservation and growth of capitol and therefore its own survival as long as possible? Understand these aren't the same things, even though early on you are taught that they are.

Without sounding to marxist, the free market (the greed of the free market anyways) is a parasite that eventually eats itself into oblivion. It only has one logical conclusion if allowed to run unchecked, and that is the elimination of the free market and therefore its own destruction.

The free market is based on greed, as such it requires people to constantly accumulate more and more capitol. If they don't, someone else will eventually price them out of the market. You will reach a point where the only way to accumulate more capitol is to control the market (and therefore no longer have a free market). To make things more micro, one way to maximize your capitol growth is to minimize your cost of labour. You want to pay them as little as you can.

Ofcourse labour is trying to do the exact same thing. Its trying to accumulate as much of its own capitol as possible, because if it doesn't they will eventually be priced out of the market (they won't be able to afford to survive). Eventually it reaches a point where the only way for it to accumulate more capitol is to control the market itself... the end result is unions.

To get technical, unions are as free market as capitol is. Its is a spawn of capitalism.

Its a strange paradox. You give someone a free market, and eventually the only guarantee is that the market will no longer be free.

In the end, labour has the ultimate power. Capitol is meaningless without someone/something to use it on, and thats labour. As long as labour is willing to stick together, they can ALWAYS win the fight because it is always needed and will be, at the very least, the last survivor. The only way they don't is if that freedom to unionize is taken away from them. Which ofcourse means, the market is no longer free or was never actually free in the first place.

They are trying to slay the same dragon everyone else is (someone else's greed). It takes an enourmous amount of risk and sacrifice to do it and survive.

Doesn't mean I won't find it incredibly inconvient!! Since I'm a greedy human also, its makes unsympathetic towards their battle.... until the day it benifits me ofcourse

I agree completely with almost everything.

Many of these issues are legislated against though. Monopolies are not legally allowed to exist. And there are minimum wage laws, overtime laws and many other laws in place to help protect employees.

And unions are not entirely borne out of free market given that union laws, which force all employees to abide by union decisions whether or not they agree, alter the market. This is not necessarily a bad thing since they could have possibly prevented the great depression. BUT it is not borne out of the true free market.

So the questions becomes: 1)has enough legislation been passed to protect employees from abusive labor conditions?; and 2)do unions LAWS create friction which hinders the possible growth of corporations?

IF the answer to both of these is yes, then unions laws are not necessary, and could be a small part of a greater problem.

Aside, capitalism does always consume more, but there is not necessarily a foreseeable end to the amount we can consume given how quickly we develop better, safer and more efficient technology. For example, enough solar energy hits the sahara desert to power the world multiple times over.