[quote=“MiG”]The fired workers weren’t part of a union.
Again, how was RBC being forced to fire them? Because they were costing too much and causing the corporation to lose money?[/quote]
I guess I should have made two different posts, I didn’t think it was that hard to comprehend.
The first part of my post dealt with RBC and how I thought they were acting underhanded and should be held accountable. Full Stop.
The second part dealt with the perceived unfair hiring practices of all large businesses, and that it isn’t just the companies causing this, that unions shoulder some of the blame. I bring this up because these trends are in the news a lot lately. And while THIS IS NOT THE CASE with the OP news story, it is related in general.
I did say RBC will, or should, be held accountable, so I am also turned off by this news story. My comments regarding organized labour were more general and directed at the big picture of business and labour force. For example, the practice of hiring a bunch of part timers as opposed to fewer full times means lower wages, little or no benefits etc. The companies get all of the heat for these business practices, but organized labour plays a role too.
Agreed. Unions and Labour both play a role…they signed a contract.
They what?
They signed a contract that both sides (either wisely or unwisely committed to and are bound by.
I’ll might support your argument that both sides should own up to their responsibilities and that maybe in true economic hard times either side could give a little: but I have yet to see a large corporation making billions of dollars quarterly (not annually) like some banks are now, spontaneously raise wages, improve benefits and hire more workers. (The story is about the Royal Bank making billions and still wanting to undermine their work force). Your are naively buying into the spin of the new Harper Canada…sort of like a lamb baring his neck to the wolf because the wolf cries - "Wolf!’
Well, I am not a Harper fan, but I am somewhat conservative.
And speaking of naive, I think everyone is to an extent. This is not the first case of contract workers replacing employees. Look at Telus, Shaw, Rogers, Fortis, etc, they are all using contract workers. Labour costs grew to a point that they could no longer keep passing it on to the consumer, who rightly were complaining. Obviously foreign contractors raises eyebrows, but would the reaction be different if they were Canadian contractors?
Or what about people who bank online? Do you not think that by doing so you put people out of a job at the branch? Yes, technology has been taking jobs too. So when you speak of naive, it is an all inclusive club.
crazy Horse, I totally agree…everyone is naive about something. An example I heard today was of a Canadian worker at TD who accepted outsourced (read less costly for the company, lower wages and no benefits for the worker) work. Her problem: her current outsourced contract was about to expire…but before it did she had to train foreign workers to do her job at even lower wages and no benefits. The outsourced job was being outsourced.
Naive: accepting that many of the corporations you suggested are adverse to taking advantage of both the worker (you cost too much) and the consumer (you need to pay more). As for bank tellers - at the time I believe the tellers warned what would happen…and we naively bought the corporate line. Result: less service, more profits.
Passively sitting back and having our future planned from the corporate point of view seems to be the opiate of the consumer.
Passively sitting back and having our future planned from the corporate point of view seems to be the opiate of the consumer.[/quote]
I think this is because consumers have decided what they want;
Price
Availability
Customer Service
Knowledgable staff
In that order. So now we have Wal Mart and Target.
And technology is what it is. People want it because it is new and companies use it to save money. Online purchasing, self serve, self checkout, whatever it is, people do it because they feel empowered, companies like it because it saves money.
When is too cheap, too cheap for Canadians? Time to put an end to this kind of practice. Consumers hold the power here. We need to flex our might with our wallets aka moving funds away from risky corporations that conduct themselves like RBC has. Why is it Canadian companies don’t feel responsible to hire Canadian workers?
The record billions in profit are not used to further serve their customers and keep the business continually serving - it’s feeding a few pockets on the other end and it will always need to be doing that. Which is why fees keep rising. Stakeholders in these corporations are concerned only with greed when you look at the data. Billions in profit - where is that money reinvested back into the Canadian economy? Where is it used to provide higher salaries to grunts or critical Canadian staff members?
Time to hang out a corporation or two and make them examples of why you DON’T do this to Canadian citizens I think.
Thank you M2Z1 - I had decided to hold my tongue and not respond to the suggestion that our collective sense of ethics and social responsibility amounted to nothing more than a search for price and availability. (Customer service and knowledgeable staff having already been outsourced). I think that the more vocal the dissatisfaction with RBC’s actions the better. The greater the message of outrage directed toward Harper’s Canada for allowing it to happen the better…of course M2Z1, please ignore that I held my tongue and outsourced my expression of moral outrage to you! Thanks!
[quote=“MeepMeepZoom”]
The record billions in profit are not used to further serve their customers and keep the business continually serving - it’s feeding a few pockets on the other end and it will always need to be doing that. [/quote]
Not entirely true. Shareholders, mutual funds, pensions etc. benefit from a profitable company too. I would rather a bank be successful than a failure.
[quote=“MeepMeepZoom”]
The record billions in profit are not used to further serve their customers and keep the business continually serving - it’s feeding a few pockets on the other end and it will always need to be doing that. [/quote]
Not entirely true. Shareholders, mutual funds, pensions etc. benefit from a profitable company too. I would rather a bank be successful than a failure.[/quote]
If this undermining of Canadian workers is a desperate Hail Mary to save the bank from failure then the bank is already a failure. They make a dollar the worker makes a dime, but they’d rather pay a penny… crude, but you get the gist.
Not entirely true. Shareholders, mutual funds, pensions etc. benefit from a profitable company too. I would rather a bank be successful than a failure.[/quote]
Sure. It is good if a company is profitable. However, the RBC needs to remember that they exist because people choose to put their hard earned cash in their vaults. People are free to choose another charter bank or credit union.