OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Naturally, full time jobs are better for the economy but that's not what the market calls for. The LCBO has to act like a business despite its ties to the Government.
If that's the case, then MRPL should determine wages. Given the revenues that LC generates and the relatively few number of employees that generate that revenue, each individual employees' MRPL is likely a lot higher than the union wage rate. If you want the LC to operate like a business, why shouldn't the employees be paid on MRPL like they are in the private sector?
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Stock boys and cashiers are almost always a part-time profession in the retail sector. This isn't about "union ignorance" this is about discussing what actually happens in the marketplace. Let's not also forget that the 'company' that owns the LCBO is broke.
Contradiction. You just said they should operate like a business, despite ties to government. And the government isn't broke. That's conservative horseshit. Even if it were, that's got nothing to do with the LC, which is extremely profitable.
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
The LCBO is a business that needs to staff it's stores to properly serve the customers while keeping costs inline. That's how retail stores work. They treat their staff very well with respect to their rate of pay but making demands for more full-time workers, guaranteed hours and more money isn't realistic.
Given the revenues that the employer is raking in, it absolutely is reasonable and realistic. You're always talking about how businesses should pay out to their employees when they're doing well but should expect to get concessions from labour when they're not. The LC is a perfect example of a company doing very well. The employees ought to share in that success. MRPL, Ricky, way she fucking goes.