Winnipeg Construction X

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

My point was, having no wage increase while everything costs more and more is not acceptable.

Wages need to keep pace with inflation. In the industry I work in, we get wage increases every year at least equal to inflation. It's in the employers best interest to retain talent. otherwise we'd go work elsewhere were wages increase.

In your particular situation it may be in the employers best interest to increase wages to remain competitive. However, if market forces swing the other way and the employer has a larger pool of talent than positions in the market then why would the employer increase wages.

The best way to increase your wage is to improve your skills and acquire better employment whether through promotion or new employer. Self improvement is the best way to control your wage security. You shouldn't rely on an employer to blindly increase your wage at the rate of inflation out of the kindness of their own heart.

When I say you I'm referring to people in general not you as an individual.

[bomberjet]

Absolutely.

All I was saying is that companies who have zero wage increases at all, is BS. Your employees spending power goes down overtime. Making it harder for them to get ahead. When the company is likely increasing their revenue to keep pace with the markets.

Some of my friends on social media post about this regularly. One in particular hasn't gotten a raise in the 3 years they've been with his employer. BS. People say well just go to another company. But it's not so simple when the next company operates the same way.

[CoryB]

^^ It is interesting reading people's opinions on wage increases especially in the context of the current assurity movements at both the provincial and civic levels. It is also interesting the city is wanting to push the minimum starting wage to $15/hour.

I am not about keeping the poor down, the problem I see is if the minimum wage is pushed to $15/hour for everyone (not just civic worker) is that it will cause a huge spike in inflation and those the increase was meant to help won't be any further ahead. Worse, the inflation spike is going to drag a whole bunch of people down with it and actually make the overall situation worse than the one that movement was trying to resolve.

[esquire]

I noticed that the G3 signs at the top of 423 Main are gone... G3 has moved into the former Scotiabank Building at Winnipeg Square. Thus ends G3's/CWB's decades-long connection to 423 Main.

[Hecate]

It’s really difficult to address income inequality through wage increases when business owners just pass the responsibility on to the consumers. Wage increases need to happen, but checks need to be put in place so that it doesn’t drive up inflation. This means taxing companies that make excessive amounts of profit at the expense of their employees. That’s the only way to properly address the issue. Walmart makes billions in profits annually, why can they not pay a fair wage? Why can’t they offer better benefits? Tax these companies that exploit human beings. These companies should be paying for the social programs that are needed because they refuse to pay people fairly. Now which of our politicians has the balls to make that happen?

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by CoryB

^^ It is interesting reading people's opinions on wage increases especially in the context of the current assurity movements at both the provincial and civic levels. It is also interesting the city is wanting to push the minimum starting wage to $15/hour.

I am not about keeping the poor down, the problem I see is if the minimum wage is pushed to $15/hour for everyone (not just civic worker) is that it will cause a huge spike in inflation and those the increase was meant to help won't be any further ahead. Worse, the inflation spike is going to drag a whole bunch of people down with it and actually make the overall situation worse than the one that movement was trying to resolve.

Agreed. The other issue is that as soon as all those "entry level" employees get to $15. All the ones making $15-20 will ask for a raise, as they'll see their work as higher value and want more separation. Then it continues up the ladder.

People working for any level of government should be compensated in the range of what the market is paying for that job in the private sector. Government work has great benefits and generally good pay as well – usually above market already. I know so many people who work(ed) for the City, Hydro, etc. and laugh at how well they get paid for how little is expected of them.

Originally Posted by esquire

I noticed that the G3 signs at the top of 423 Main are gone... G3 has moved into the former Scotiabank Building at Winnipeg Square. Thus ends G3's/CWB's decades-long connection to 423 Main.

Initially, Skip had secured the naming rights starting in 2020 (they were going to expand their presence in the building) but when they decided to consolidate to TNS, they gave it up.

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by dmacc

However, if market forces swing the other way and the employer has a larger pool of talent than positions in the market then why would the employer increase wages.

Because employers that aren't stupid realize there is a cost to training and lesser qualified employees.

The best way to increase your wage is to improve your skills and acquire better employment whether through promotion or new employer. Self improvement is the best way to control your wage security. You shouldn't rely on an employer to blindly increase your wage at the rate of inflation out of the kindness of their own heart.

The good 'ol. "If you don't like it, find another job and let someone else work in a job that doesn't pay enough"

How about ensuring all jobs pay enough.

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I am not about keeping the poor down, the problem I see is if the minimum wage is pushed to $15/hour for everyone (not just civic worker) is that it will cause a huge spike in inflation and those the increase was meant to help won't be any further ahead. Worse, the inflation spike is going to drag a whole bunch of people down with it and actually make the overall situation worse than the one that movement was trying to resolve.

And yet, in every instance where a $15 or thereabouts minimum wage has been implemented, this hasn't been the case.

[pegcityfan]

Originally Posted by DancingDuck

I believe it is actually of a dragon, it's in the backyard of a house on the west side of Coral Crescent near Cottonwood.
Approximately here https://maps.app.goo.gl/SGdeF8PziAhfRHJLA

My dad grew up near there and he's always told me it was an art project that a girl did for university. The house is/was her parents house. I have no idea how accurate any of the story is but it's a damn impressive sculpture either way.

Thanks DancingDuck & Wags. Yes that's the one. Not sure why I thought spider. Impressive indeed.

[davequanbury]

Originally Posted by StNorberter

And yet, in every instance where a $15 or thereabouts minimum wage has been implemented, this hasn't been the case.

That's my understanding also. In fact, this article from July by Vox points to several studies that reach the same conclusion.
https://www.vox.com/2019/7/2/2067882...increase-study

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by buzzg

People working for any level of government should be compensated in the range of what the market is paying for that job in the private sector. Government work has great benefits and generally good pay as well – usually above market already.

Sadly that has long stopped being true outside of select fields. Most fields working for government means you are being paid below market rates and it some cases (medical doctors, lawyers, labour relations) it is so far below market rates it has become difficult to retain employees.

I know some years back a friend was looking for a new job and I suggested they apply for a government job. They looked at the salary and said they made far more in private industry. And it isn't just "one person" saying it but applies across the board. All those below inflation annual increases and union contracts that mean you can't earn an salary increase based on merit have really caught up with things.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Hecate

It’s really difficult to address income inequality through wage increases when business owners just pass the responsibility on to the consumers. Wage increases need to happen, but checks need to be put in place so that it doesn’t drive up inflation. This means taxing companies that make excessive amounts of profit at the expense of their employees. That’s the only way to properly address the issue. Walmart makes billions in profits annually, why can they not pay a fair wage? Why can’t they offer better benefits? Tax these companies that exploit human beings. These companies should be paying for the social programs that are needed because they refuse to pay people fairly. Now which of our politicians has the balls to make that happen?

What’s an excessive amount of profit? You understand that corporations are already taxed based on income (essentially, profit)?

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Sadly that has long stopped being true outside of select fields. Most fields working for government means you are being paid below market rates and it some cases (medical doctors, lawyers, labour relations) it is so far below market rates it has become difficult to retain employees.

I know some years back a friend was looking for a new job and I suggested they apply for a government job. They looked at the salary and said they made far more in private industry. And it isn't just "one person" saying it but applies across the board. All those below inflation annual increases and union contracts that mean you can't earn an salary increase based on merit have really caught up with things.

Completely anecdotally but I have a friend who's works for the government and is paid far above what he would be getting in the private sector. He was actually on the verge of being fired from a private sector job because of poor performance (and quite frankly he's not super bright) and he was hired into the government from a visible minority job fair. He's the first to admit that if he wasn't a minority he'd be stocking shelves at Walmart.

[dmacc]

If you are going to compare difference in pay between government and private you need to take into account total compensation package. Pay, Pension and benefits all need to be considered when talking about employee compensation.

Pension alone has a value alone into the tens of thousands a year in compensation value. a Financial Planner told me that for someone making $50,000 a year the compensation value of a Heb pension (Manitoba Government Pension) to have a annual value of around $20,000. Now you don't get that in direct compensation but that is the amount that you need to put in every year to match its value in retirement.

When you consider Health & Dental Benefits, not only do employees save money due to their superior coverage's then the average private sector benefits plan, it also costs much less, around $40 per month for each Health and Dental coverage based on single coverage.

When all added up that amounts to significant increases in compensation. Each individual needs to asses all these before choosing an employer or changing employers. The devil is in the details. I for one have turned down opportunities to earn more dollars because the total compensations were less.

[bomberjet]

Companies like Amazon pay net zero in taxes. They "invest" in things like research and development. Which gives them tax breaks and they do this to such a degree their taxes are zero. Their employees are literally dieing and paid bare bones wages.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Completely anecdotally but I have a friend who's works for the government and is paid far above what he would be getting in the private sector. He was actually on the verge of being fired from a private sector job because of poor performance (and quite frankly he's not super bright) and he was hired into the government from a visible minority job fair. He's the first to admit that if he wasn't a minority he'd be stocking shelves at Walmart.

The thing about current public sector compensation in Canada at most government levels is that low skilled labour tends to be over-compensated while highly skilled labour tends to be under-compensated relative to market rates. Based on the description of your friend, this seems to coincide with this notion. Overall, I'd argue that the distribution of wages in the public sector is much more normal and compact, meaning that there aren't a lot of low earners, but there aren't a lot of high earners whereas in the private sector, you would probably find a more bi-modal distribution with a lot of low-wage earners, not too many in the middle, and then a lot of high-wage earners.

A lot of low-level clerks, laborers, and receptionists can quite easily start off making $35k per year in the public sector and work their way up to $50k per year when they would otherwise most likely be making minimum wage or just above in the private sector. But in the public sector, your lawyers, accountants, engineers, IT staff, and other professional occupations will likely be earning a lot less than their counterparts in the private sector. The trade off though is going to be (mostly) increased job security, better pension plan, and potentially better health benefits in the public sector, along with well-defined work hours (7 or 8 hour days) that result in a better work-life balance. Life is all about trade-offs!

Also, there are a lot of jobs that can't necessarily be compared across public and private sectors. There are very few comparable examples of private sector soldiers, police officers, and firemen. Conversely, there are very few public sector examples of actuaries, salespeople, or tourism agents. So one always has to be careful when comparing "private versus public" sector compensation, which is probably why a lot of people rely on anecdotes.

[Winnipeg Grump]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

The thing about current public sector compensation in Canada at most government levels is that low skilled labour tends to be over-compensated while highly skilled labour tends to be under-compensated relative to market rates. Based on the description of your friend, this seems to coincide with this notion. Overall, I'd argue that the distribution of wages in the public sector is much more normal and compact, meaning that there aren't a lot of low earners, but there aren't a lot of high earners whereas in the private sector, you would probably find a more bi-modal distribution with a lot of low-wage earners, not too many in the middle, and then a lot of high-wage earners.

A lot of low-level clerks, laborers, and receptionists can quite easily start off making $35k per year in the public sector and work their way up to $50k per year when they would otherwise most likely be making minimum wage or just above in the private sector. But in the public sector, your lawyers, accountants, engineers, IT staff, and other professional occupations will likely be earning a lot less than their counterparts in the private sector. The trade off though is going to be (mostly) increased job security, better pension plan, and potentially better health benefits in the public sector, along with well-defined work hours (7 or 8 hour days) that result in a better work-life balance. Life is all about trade-offs!

Also, there are a lot of jobs that can't necessarily be compared across public and private sectors. There are very few comparable examples of private sector soldiers, police officers, and firemen. Conversely, there are very few public sector examples of actuaries, salespeople, or tourism agents. So one always has to be careful when comparing "private versus public" sector compensation, which is probably why a lot of people rely on anecdotes.

Well put!

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Companies like Amazon pay net zero in taxes. They "invest" in things like research and development. Which gives them tax breaks and they do this to such a degree their taxes are zero. Their employees are literally dieing and paid bare bones wages.

Even if that’s true, it reflects a decision of the legislature that encouraging such investments is more valuable than collecting the equivalent in tax. If they’re no longer of that view, they should amend the tax code.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Companies like Amazon pay net zero in taxes. They "invest" in things like research and development. Which gives them tax breaks and they do this to such a degree their taxes are zero. Their employees are literally dieing and paid bare bones wages.

I think your saying two things here, yes amazon pays most in its warehouse bare bones wages.

But you also mention Amazon avoids paying taxes by reinvesting in themselves to avoid paying taxes. You mention they do this in things such as research and development, which employs high wage earners. Governments will always allow this to happen because the revenue governments will generate in taxes from a companies profits are much less then the tax revenue from an employee.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by dmacc

When you consider Health & Dental Benefits, not only do employees save money due to their superior coverage's then the average private sector benefits plan

That is completely laughable. Granted I have not done a formal survey of benefits plans in the public and private sector. The people I have talked with though the benefits are always superior on the private side. The prescription and vision coverage on the public side is tiny so it isn't hard to best it. Also its becoming more common for private plans to include parimedical such as physio, chiro, etc in the base plan which are only available at an added cost on the public side.

A lot of it is about perception v reality. Keep in mind if the public side is taking below inflation increases multiple years in a row it directly hits the pension side and is also an indicator that all monetary issues are being frozen which would include health plans.