babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Minimum wage and union dues?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Minimum wage and union dues?
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 20 February 2005 02:35 AM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Should it be legal for unions to collect union dues from union members who earn the statutory minimum wage?

[ 20 February 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 20 February 2005 02:53 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why do you ask?

Do you think that unions shouldn't organize low-paid workers?


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 20 February 2005 03:06 AM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by radiorahim:
quote:

Why do you ask?

Do you think that unions shouldn't organize low-paid workers?



radiorahim:

I know of union members who earn the statutory minimum wage.

Unions should organize low paid workers but union members who earn the statutory minimum wage should not be required to pay union dues.


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 February 2005 03:34 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What on earth would be the point of being in a union if you were still only going to get minimum wage? I think in that position, that would be my first concern - more pay! If the union can't even do that much then a) what's the point and b) hell no, they shouldn't pay dues out of their minimum wages!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 20 February 2005 03:46 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
What on earth would be the point of being in a union if you were still only going to get minimum wage?

Job protection. With no union, if you are unfairly fired you can get only severance pay in lieu of notice, and the only issue is how much you get. With a collective agreement, normally you can grieve your dismissal and an arbitrator can order you re-instated.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 20 February 2005 03:50 AM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfred Day:

Job protection. With no union, if you are unfairly fired you can get only severance pay in lieu of notice, and the only issue is how much you get. With a collective agreement, normally you can grieve your dismissal and an arbitrator can order you re-instated.


I thought in the case of unfair dismissal you can sue for reinstatement through the LRB?


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 February 2005 03:51 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is true. However, as I was saying, my first concern when I was a minimum wage employee for four years were my wages, not my job security. I already knew I would have my crappy six-buck-an-hour job for life if I wanted it and was willing to work for those wages forever.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
angrymonkey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5769

posted 20 February 2005 05:17 AM      Profile for angrymonkey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yep, like being a rower on a Roman slave galley. Benefits aren't so good but what great job security.
From: the cold | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 February 2005 05:43 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by angrymonkey:
Yep, like being a rower on a Roman slave galley. Benefits aren't so good but what great job security.

There have never been as many slaves in the world as there are today. Women in poor Asian countries are tricked into going to places like Saudi Arabia with promises of jobs. When they get there they are forced to become permanent household slaves, without pay. They are not permitted to leave and are beaten often to control obedience.

One Filipino who escaped from Kuwait claimed "The whole country was a jail." About ten percent of Kuwaiti's are allowed to vote for prince al sabah in mock elections.

Globalisation is a sham.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 20 February 2005 06:07 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
What on earth would be the point of being in a union if you were still only going to get minimum wage? I think in that position, that would be my first concern - more pay! If the union can't even do that much then a) what's the point and b) hell no, they shouldn't pay dues out of their minimum wages!

I agree 100%. Mrs Floyd had to pay union dues when working for minimum wage and I never once understood the purpose of the union. It did more to prevent her advancing than anything else.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 February 2005 07:06 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

I agree 100%. Mrs Floyd had to pay union dues when working for minimum wage and I never once understood the purpose of the union. It did more to prevent her advancing than anything else.


What ARE you people worried about unions in Canada for ?. Only the U.S., Russia and Mexico have lower rates of unionized labour force among developed countries. And only those countries have higher rates of child poverty than Canada. No need to lose any sleep over it because there's plenty of low wage philanthropy out there to grovel for.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 February 2005 10:22 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe we should stick to the topic of whether people on minimum wage should have to pay union dues.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 20 February 2005 10:33 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, unions are about more than just wages. They negotiate increased holidays, rules of work, educate and enforce health and safety standards for just a few examples.

Be that as it may, if there is a collective aggreement that doesn't provide, on wages and working conditions, beyond the minimums described in the various Employment Standards Acts across the country, then there is little point in paying money to what amounts to a dues collection agency.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 February 2005 10:39 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, I absolutely agree that there are more issues than just wages when it comes to organized labour. I didn't mean to imply that it's all about the wages.

But, at minimum wage, it IS all about the wages, at least it was for me. At the point where you don't make enough money to pay the rent, wages are the all-consuming issue. And as you say, Tommy, what's the point of paying your money to a dues collection agency that does nothing about your most pressing labour concern?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 February 2005 10:41 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm sure that the two and three income families will not agree with paying union dues. But what about the single parents trying to stay off social assistance ?. Do they not need representing by a union ?. Most of them will not have the luxury of a second income and have to make due with crummy jobs and lousy employers who couldn't spell "health and safety" if they had a dictionary.

Is this off topic ?.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 February 2005 10:51 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I see your point, Fidel. And actually, during those four years after high school that I worked for minimum wage, I often wished we had a union. But a few of my coworkers didn't want one because they thought it would just suck money out of wages that were already so low, that they wouldn't be able to live.

I wanted a union for other reasons as well, but most of them were pay-related. For instance, I wanted equal pay to the men in the establishment who got paid almost twice as much as I did, when our work was at the same skill-level, had the same value, and when we actually worked harder than they did. I worked in a bakery, where I did all the retail stuff like packaging the product, preparing wholesale orders for restaurants, etc., and the men in question delivered the wholesale order to the restaurants. We did just as much heavy-lifting as the men did, because we had to carry crates of baked goods through the bakery and stack them right next to the delivery door. Their jobs were no more "skilled" than ours were (the trucks were cube trucks that just took a "G" license), involved less heavy-lifting than ours did, involved less time on their feet, less physical stamina, etc. But we were paid almost half of what they were.

So yes, issues of job equity were important. So was the fact that the boss would often "forget" hours or "miscalculate" our time cards, and leave several hours of work off the paycheque, and instead of correcting the mistake then and there, just said he would add them to the next paycheque. I sure wished I had a union to grieve to about that.

But really, what I really wanted was simply more money. Even if all the health and safety and harassment violations didn't happen, I still didn't have enough money to live. And that concern comes before all others, at least to my mind. If a union can't even do that much, force an employer to pay a living wage, then they're pretty much useless.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 20 February 2005 11:12 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sometimes it could be the fault of the union. The UFCW comes to mind here, but then there are people trying to reform that dues collection agency into a union.

Some of that might not be fair. Organizing and bargaining in the retail sector, for example, seems to have more challenges than organizing in other sectors of the economy, as we've most recently seen with Satan's Five and Dime, WalMart.

Sometimes, we look to a legislative solution to these problems. I'm not so sure this is always the best route.

I know in the Satan's Five and Dime example, the union is not calling for a Boycot, and are taking the legal/legislative route.

Personally, I think the Boycott card was played too often in the 60's, 70's and 80's. I mean, I was a union activist, and I was losing track of places I wasn't supposed to be buying from.

However, I think that a carefully done Boycott of WalMart is the answer here. Not only do we have union interests on our side, there are other segments of society that would climb on board, such as independant retailers, small towns and people against big box sprawl.

And yes, there would be job loss if WalMart got kicked out of Canada. But that would be temporary, as the vacuum would be filled by another retailer-- one or more that would know that unfair labour practices will land them in economic difficulty.

The sectors of our economy that are dominated by minimum wages are tough nuts to crack. But walking away from them and going the non union route, as a society or as an individual accomplishes less than being part of a union which, for one reason or another, can't seem to make headway on that issue.

[ 20 February 2005: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 February 2005 11:12 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't beleive unions are strong enough in Ontario to be able to bargain for those kinds of rights. I know what you mean about pay equity. It doesn't exist here. When I was young, I worked at a tree seedling nursury in N. Ontario, one of the few times I worked alongside women. The hours were long and the work seasonal. At the end of the day, we lifted hundreds of steel pallets filled with water soaked trays of tree seedlings, stacking them eigh high before they were loaded on transport trucks. We'd sometimes have to get the pallets loaded while inside the greenhouses and with inside temps anywhere from 40-50 degrees C. The trays were heavy and some of the women would come out to help us stack them half height. They were mature women and weren't afraid of hard work, but they were paid same old minimum wage as the rest of us.

In all our cases, none of the work was worth the pay, but there was little else available to us in our Northern community. The private contractor we worked for was a local area "party" supporter and liked to have the younger women come to his house for extra yard work during regular hours. My buddies and I often didn't have proper clothing or footwear for the demeaning tasks assigned to us at the time. I loved those people, and if it weren't for the comraderie, I'd have been outta there long before I did go.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 February 2005 11:33 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe unions aren't strong enough in Ontario to bargain for those kind of rights. In which case, it's kind of a vicious circle, isn't it? People on minimum wage won't organize because they see no real benefits in it for them (e.g. an increase in their standard of living, and actually, factoring in dues, a DECREASE in their income), and because they won't organize, nothing will ever change. It's sad.

However, the proposal at the beginning of this thread - that unions not collect dues from minimum wage workers - might be a step towards convincing minimum wage workers that organizing at least won't HURT their bottom line.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 February 2005 12:03 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree. And that's why some of the larger unions have offered to pull in some of the lowest wage workers into their fold in recent times. One big union walks taller and wields a bigger stick. It's a reason why French and German workers have the more paid vacation and maternity/paternity leave than our workers do and so on with worker's rights. Here, we cower to corporations and their political friends who have delivered up "flexible labour markets" on their behooves.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ethical Redneck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8274

posted 22 February 2005 02:35 PM      Profile for Ethical Redneck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hello there again. Well, this is a good topic, but, like most things, I don't think it's all as simple as we would like it to be.

In most cases, what wages are paid and what working conditions exist in a workplace depends largely on what the workers are willing to stand and push for (obviously, of course, market conditions that affect that business come into play as well).

But unless workers in a particular business join an existing union and get their bosses to agree to sign on to an existing collective agreement, then whatever gets put on the bargaining table depends entirely on what that specific group of workers wants and is willing to fight for.

Wages are usually a big issue, but not always. For example, in my community we have two Seven Eleven stores and both are union (UFCW I think).

The wages are certainly better than minimum wage, but in talking with a couple folks who works, it's not the biggest concern (since these are kids who live at home). Rather, it's the right to negotiate shifts and hour of work and a fair assignment system.


I remember when the CAW signed up the McDonald's restaurant in Squamish, the biggest issue there wasn't wages, but seniority, workers having a say in work schedules, staffing, discrimination, etc.

Also, there are lots of union workers who are self-employed, owner operators, or work on a contract or commission basis. Straight wage rate issues aren't the big concern for these folks as much as benefits, grievance procedures, bulk buying of things they need for their business, etc.

SO it's not always an issue of wages, even in some places where the wages are very low.


From: Deep in the Rockies | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
canadianpatriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4556

posted 22 February 2005 03:15 PM      Profile for canadianpatriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

I agree 100%. Mrs Floyd had to pay union dues when working for minimum wage and I never once understood the purpose of the union. It did more to prevent her advancing than anything else.


Unions work better for higher paid jobs.


From: National Capital | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
spatrioter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2299

posted 22 February 2005 05:11 PM      Profile for spatrioter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ethical Redneck:
Wages are usually a big issue, but not always.
I agree - when I worked in retail, the biggest issues were with verbal harassment from my boss, not being paid on time, refusing to pay for statutory holidays, etc.

But the fact remains, although I am always in favour of unionization on principle, it would be stupid for me to join a union in that situation, considering I was paying rent on my credit card, and just barely earning enough to buy Kraft dinner. When you're earning poverty wages, you don't have the luxury to pay union dues.

I think a policy of not collecting union dues from those earning below living wage would be effective in two ways : It would encourage low-paid workers to unionize by eliminating the management argument that unionization results in a wage decrease. It would also encourage unions to push harder for living wages by giving them financial incentives to reach that goal.


From: Trinity-Spadina | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 22 February 2005 05:32 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The discussion is a little off. As an organizer, it's a lot of hard work and the results are very unclear. Unions, for better or worse, focus their attention where they are most likely to succeed. My view is that a supportive legal infrastructure is a necessity for some of the most difficult to organize. People are just so brainwashed against unions.

The management in the the retail trade, much less the restaurant biz, for example, hold just about all the cards. Further, If people aren't paying ANYTHING for something of value (union membership) then they are very likely to form the (mistaken) conclusion that what they are getting is worthless. And the fact is, with a reserve army of labour, it is too easy to replace one low wage worker with another low wage worker.

The history of the union movement has peaks and valleys in its history. Some of those peaks reflect a courageousness, in the face of horrific management atrocities that still go on today , to raise the struggle to higher level by, for example, organizing in a new way. The transition from "trade" unions to "industry-wide" unions was one such peak. Organizing the working poor and the unorganized in a new way, perhaps by new laws, is long, long overdue.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
unmaladroit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7325

posted 23 February 2005 12:37 PM      Profile for unmaladroit        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
mr. beltov. my 20 experience in the minimum wage hospitality industry has had a small experience with a union. it was in a large hotel chain. my experience wasn't a good one, since i have always been a hard worker, and that was the first time that some of my co-workers were protected in their laziness. it bothered me. since then, the non-union lazy workers that i have worked with were protected by family rights. that bothered me too.

i have not been brainwashed, but my experience doesn't favour unions or family-protected laziness. now, i have been trying to understand, having read a bit of the history of unions, and listening in these forums. i am leaning towards an open mind with regrds to unions. i agree with what you said in the bottom of your post, as to the intent of a perfect union, but, as you are an organizer, i have contention with this perception/attitude:

quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
The discussion is a little off. As an organizer, it's a lot of hard work and the results are very unclear. Unions, for better or worse, focus their attention where they are most likely to succeed....People are just so brainwashed against unions.

...Further, If people aren't paying ANYTHING for something of value (union membership) then they are very likely to form the (mistaken) conclusion that what they are getting is worthless...


1) unions focus their attention where they are most likely to succeed.

2) if people aren't paying ANYTHING for union membership, then they are likely to form the mistaken conclusion that what they are getting is useless.

if people are BRAINWASHED about unions, it might be because of the perception they portray, not what they cost.

1) if unions really exist because of and for their prospective members, then they should be on the battlefield of difficult sectors, not just where they are likely to succeed, or in the marketplace that is able to pay dues.

2) as a bargain shopper, i don't necessarily believe that the product that costs more is a better product than the one that costs less, although that arguement works for some.

somebody is doing the brainwashing, and i think you might have bought into it. please correct me if i am way off.


From: suspicionville, bc | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 23 February 2005 12:49 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Quick comment (more to follow): I have some experience as an organizer - and it was mostly unpaid. The large unions have professional staff that do this sort of thing on a full time basis.

I've gotta do some work, eh? I will be back.

[ 23 February 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ethical Redneck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8274

posted 23 February 2005 01:04 PM      Profile for Ethical Redneck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, wer sher gettin into some serious stuff here

quote:
i have not been brainwashed, but my experience doesn't favour unions or family-protected laziness.

Now hold on there a minute unmaladroit. I'm sure you are sincere about your poor experience working in that hotel. Just the thought of having such a job curls my hair (actually, it's already a bit curly so I guess it ain't that bad).

But this worn out notion that unions protect lazy workers is mostly just hot air without much substance.

In my years, working at many different jobs, being a labour activist and organizer and helping folks stand up for their rights, I have seen many very subjective uses of the word "lazy."

This is especially true when you compare who the workers think is lazy and who the boss thinks is lazy.

People who constantly try to sluff off duties and not do their jobs with much attention, more often upset their fellow workers than the boss, since they are the ones who have to make up the slack.

The result is if or when these folks get into some kind of trouble, their fellow workers won't stand behind them, and these types get fired or reprimanded or whatever.

Keep in mind that the traditional value of unions around here in terms of work place discipline is "innocent until proven otherwise." That runs contrary to the dictatorial capitalist mantra of "the boss is always right."

Also, there are often mitigating circumstances as to why a person's productivity or commitment to the job ends up lacking.

For example, if someone is stressed due to a divorce, death in the family, illness or depression, etc, and it affects their work habits, are they just lazy and deserving of punishment, or are they basically good folks who are having problems and need help?

The latter is obviously true. But on the job, it can still make others frustrated. That’s why many unions have set up member assistance programs as part of their health and welfare plans, that includes counseling, etc.

It's quite often not just a simple matter of someone being lazy or dishonest.

As for the organizing stuff you mentioned, this is just plain common sense strategy. Of course, union tend to focus their organizing efforts on where they feel most likely to succeed.

My experience is success tends to breed more success. If you organize successfully in one place, workers at others, which initially may have been much harder to organize, often get more interested.

Trying organizing workplaces where there is currently little or now interest, or the situation is really tenuous, while ignoring places where there is a lot of interest wouldn't make sense.

I agree, though, that unions should be always actively interested in organizing even in sectors where there isn't a lot of money to be made. Working people are working people regardless of what sector they are in and they are deserving of being union members and working with others to improve their well-being.

I think the BCGEU has done a good job of this around here, signing all kinds of people working in the various small non-profit ventures. Even though there isn't much room for big wage increases, other things, like affordable benefits plans, human rights, health and safety, as well as community issues, are all important things for workers in these sectors.

Ah, long bloody rant. Sorry.


From: Deep in the Rockies | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 23 February 2005 01:28 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At minimum, unions are the collective representation of workers in a company and they exist for different reasons in various sectors of the economy. Assuming that the company is actually unable to offer much more than minimum wage, then there still may be reasons for being unionized. If a particular worker enjoys their min. wage job, but is dealing with a boss who exhibits sexist, classist, racist or ageist behaviours, then other workers will be able to deal with this in a more organized way. Why should the worker have to leave if the boss is the problem?

For example, my sister worked as a waitress and really enjoyed interacting with people, but it was well known to other workers that her boss constantly hit on her despite the obvious fact that she had no interest in the guy. As a rather low key, timid person, she was not about to file a human rights compaint. She was also not about to tell her fiance because she knew he would likely go and assault the supervisor. Since it was a minimum wage job and she was not doing it for the money, she put up with it for a while and then just quit and I am sure the guy moved onto another female worker who might very well not have the luxury of just quitting.

So, if a union exists simply to represent workers on these issues because they are unable to press for higher wages, then they probably do not have significant union costs and dues should be absolutely minimal anyways. I would hope, however, that more established unions would perceive all workers as part of a larger movement and ensure all dues are affordable.


From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 23 February 2005 01:55 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry, I just joined in and I read the thread quickly, but did CUPE Reformer ever provide a single example of a union that collects dues when it's member make minimum wage?

Because I've never ever ever ever ever EVER heard of that happening in Canada and it's a pretty bold claim to make without any evidence.

Yes, there are other reason to join a union other than wages. Yes, a union that leaves its members earning minimum wage is pretty pathetic. But before we type ourselves to death why don't we determine where and when this has actually happened - because I don't know a single union that would walk away from contract negotiations with employees earning minimum wage.

Sources?


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 23 February 2005 02:05 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by spatrioter:
But the fact remains, although I am always in favour of unionization on principle, it would be stupid for me to join a union in that situation, considering I was paying rent on my credit card, and just barely earning enough to buy Kraft dinner. When you're earning poverty wages, you don't have the luxury to pay union dues.
I've been a trade unionist for over a decade and I can not think of a single time where a union has negotiated a first contract that left them earning LESS.

It just doesn't happen.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
unmaladroit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7325

posted 23 February 2005 02:54 PM      Profile for unmaladroit        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ethical Redneck:
Now hold on there a minute unmaladroit. I'm sure you are sincere about your poor experience working in that hotel. Just the thought of having such a job curls my hair (actually, it's already a bit curly so I guess it ain't that bad)...But this worn out notion that unions protect lazy workers is mostly just hot air without much substance.

you've made some excellent points about why someone may be perceived as lazy, and why unions have setup workshops and family-counselling programs to aid in personal issues.

i'll comment that i did not have a poor experience at that unionized hotel. in fact i worked there for 2 and a half years, in spite of providing what had to be more than my fair share of responsibilities. due to my work ethic, i was promoted, the "others" were not. yet i still had to deal with their ethic. what i learned from this experience was that i will never reduce my output, and i will pick up the slack of others. but the notion that these jobs weren't protected by the union is the hot air that i dispute from your post.

they are protected. "laziness" or whatever name you wish to not call it, is not always a personal or family-related matter. i will from now on call it "subdued work ethic born of repetitive conditions, whether they be of national origin, genetically propogated, or environmentally enhanced". compared to my non-union environments, in the other 18 years of restaurant biz activities, these natured/nurtured calm workers had it easy. not in any other job that i've had (save the family members who slacked because of their ability to do so with impunity) were my co-workers allowed to work at such a meandering pace...and you know how busy hospitality workers have to be to accomodate the market of demand/respond.

i do not believe my lack of support for the endemic "subdued work ethic born of repetitive conditions, whether they be of national origin, genetically propogated, or environmentally enhanced" situation in hospitality industry unions is hot air without substance. maybe this is a reason why unions have had no success in this market.

quote:
Originally posted by Burns:
...because I don't know a single union that would walk away from contract negotiations with employees earning minimum wage.

how about just about every union, when it comes to the minimum wage hospitality industry?

quote:
Non-Union, Low-Wage Workers Are Finding a Voice as Immigrant Workers Centers Grow.

"Because many low-wage workers today are as likely to be struck by lightning as to be approached to join a union, many community-based efforts around work and wages have organized outside the context of labor unions. Of course some unions, such as the Service Employees with their Justice for Janitors and home health aid campaigns, are targeting low-wage workers. But these drives are still the exception."



From: suspicionville, bc | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 23 February 2005 03:25 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I would also like to see a single example from CUPE_Reformer where dues were collected from people earning the "statutory" minimum wage. Otherwise it's just a rhetorical question only. The fact is,
quote:
When it comes to wages of non-managerial employees, union members typically make over $5.00 per hour ($5.09) more than non-union workers. The difference is even greater for female employees who generally earn almost $6.00 more than their non-unionized counterparts.
But unions mean more than higher wages. Through collective bargaining, they typically make wages more equal among workers, and therefore ensure that less people are left with low paid jobs. As a result, only 8 percent of union member earn less than $10.00 an hour as compared to a third of non-union employees.
This is from the CLC site for those interested in more info:

CLC: the largest democratic and popular organization in Canada with over three million members.

FYI unmaladroit, Labour Notes, the webite for which you provided the link, is very pro-union. They're just trying to improve things in a grim situation in their country.

Final point: agricultural labourers in Canada typically have little, if any, protection. They are typically paid "piece work" rates, etc. and could use much improvement in the law. But I would hardly hold trade unions responsible for laws that they have been unable to change.

This legal aspect is worth elaborating upon. In an unequal relationship, say in a domestic situation of physical abuse, we think nothing of helping those without power. How come this philosophy isn't applied to people without power in the workplace, generally?

Why, because that would be socialism...and we can't have that, can we? I suspect that as long as we have mass unemployment and poverty issues, the best remedy for lousy wages and working conditions will be a political one. But it sure would be a great help if the organized labour movement was bigger and if there was more organizing done.

[ 23 February 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ethical Redneck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8274

posted 23 February 2005 03:28 PM      Profile for Ethical Redneck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
but the notion that these jobs weren't protected by the union is the hot air that i dispute from your post.

AH, good response. However, that wasn't what I was trying to say. Of course, the jobs are protected. Every union member has to have some basic democratic rights backed up by his/her collective organization. That’s the way it should be.

What I was trying to say is both from my personal experience, and from union reports I have read, most often, when an individual worker in constantly slacking off or behaving irresponsibly, it is more often that the other worker suffer the consequences (as in covering, fixing up, etc.). That is why these folks often run into trouble and end up having to deal with it--like being suspended, required to seek help from those union programs I mentioned, getting "extra supervision," or, in the worst cases, getting fired. Obviously, the latter is something unions try to avoid as much as possible, even if the individual worker has problems. That's also as it should be.

Second, "laziness" is a very subjective term. I have been on many work sites where people were constantly accusing each other of being lazy, shirking work duties, sluffing off, being incompetent, etc. Yet, when I step back and look at the overall situation, everybody, more or less, is doing what is expected of them and the place runs fairly smoothly.

Obviously, these charges and counter-charges often come from minor personality conflicts or quirks, not from any actual productivity problem on any one person's part.

Third, "laziness" is even more suspect when bosses charge it. Again, personality conflicts and especially challenges to coercive corporate authority (such as an expressive worker, or someone who do a job very well, but just not the way the boss wants it done, or has certain mannerisms that don't affect the work but are objectionable to the boss, etc.).

It's often quite hypocritical when corporate bureaucrats and bosses, who in fact produce very little in terms of useful goods and services or even in practical coordination and supervision (that's most done by workers themselves), start accusing the people who actually do the work that produces the services that gives the company its value for being lazy or unproductive.

Of course, the argument is in a corporate capitalist structure, bosses aren't there to produce anything of value but to ensure that the workers produce while upholding the elite special interests of their superiors. Still, that doesn't make it right.

I do agree with you about the self-awarded privileges some workers give themselves because of family ties or other forms of insider connection to the boss or management authority.

It seems to me that some of the most wide-spread discrimination, both in hiring and promotion, happens due to nepotism and other forms of personal pay-offs that has little to do with merit, skill, seniority or competence.

Anyway, I think I'm gettin to have a big mouth on this thread. I'll knock it off for now and hopefully others will pitch in.


From: Deep in the Rockies | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 23 February 2005 03:53 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unmaladroit:
Originally posted by Burns:
...because I don't know a single union that would walk away from contract negotiations with employees earning minimum wage.

how about just about every union, when it comes to the minimum wage hospitality industry?


Jesus H Christ.

I ask for a single example of a unionized workplace where dues are collected from minimum wage workers and I get an empty rehtorical statement. Oh wait!! And a link to a Labor Notes article which is about how
labour unions are working with minimum wage workers and other groups to get them wage hikes - without charging dues!

Let's talk about real examples - not fictional bullshit.

[ 23 February 2005: Message edited by: Burns ]


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 23 February 2005 04:46 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I totally agree Burns. I also cannot think of an example where unionized people make minimum wage. Having said that, however, I still believe that acting collectively to deal with sexism, racism etc. is more effective than having to go it alone. How can a union cost anything if it does not do anything?
From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
unmaladroit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7325

posted 23 February 2005 05:08 PM      Profile for unmaladroit        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Burns:
Jesus H Christ.

I ask for a single example of a unionized workplace where dues are collected from minimum wage workers and I get an empty rehtorical statement. Oh wait!! And a link to a Labor Notes article which is about how
labour unions are working with minimum wage workers and other groups to get them wage hikes - without charging dues!

Let's talk about real examples - not fictional bullshit.


testy! jesus h. back at ya for your tantrum. looks like i pissed in your box of cornflakes. the only response i can give you to your "fictional bullshit" comment is this: read what i've written in this thread, the bossagram thread, and the organizing unions for service and hospitality industry thread. there's nothing fictional there, it's all real life experience. you might realise that i'm not anti-union, neither am i pro.

maybe if you explained your beef, instead of frothing over the boiled bones.

regarding my "empty rhetorical statement" (i thought questions were rhetorical, not statements 8O)): my response was in response to your statement "I don't know a single union that would walk away from contract negotiations with employees earning minimum wage". so...how can you explain the fact that the largest industry in north america has almost non-existant union representation? i surmise because all unions have walked away from contract negotiations with employees earning minimum wage - the hospitality industry.

one more thing burns. i doubt you read the article. i even pasted part of it in my post. what part of "many community-based efforts around work and wages have organized outside the context of labor unions", in the guise of "growing immigrant workers centres" did you not understand? (no this is not a rhetorical question, but if you want to boil over again, it's your soup that needs stirring.)

quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
...FYI unmaladroit, Labour Notes, the webite for which you provided the link, is very pro-union. They're just trying to improve things in a grim situation in their country...

i knew that, that's why i linked to it. i thought it pertinent that an article that exposed that lack of union involvement in the service industy from a pro-union website would have greater validity. (apparantly not to burns). i also read the links that robbie_dee provided to earlier threads, and the vermont crusade.

i don't agree that a political change towards socialism will be the best remedy, but a necessary one in order to accomodate a change in workplace conditions for the lower income workers.

ethical redneck: thanks for the response and clarification. i do have something to say about the "coercive corporate authority", and how that could easily apply to union bosses (or anyone who has attained a position of supervisor), but am tuckered out. maybe tomorrow. cheers!

[edited to emphasize outside and best]

[ 23 February 2005: Message edited by: unmaladroit ]


From: suspicionville, bc | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 23 February 2005 06:33 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dude. You're talking shit about how there's all these unions collecting dues from minimum wage workers and when asked for proof you point to an article about how unions help minimum wage workers without collecting any goddam dues.
From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 23 February 2005 09:10 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sorry, I just joined in and I read the thread quickly, but did CUPE Reformer ever provide a single example of a union that collects dues when it's member make minimum wage?

This thread has gotten rather long since my post...but skimming through them I haven't seen one either.

I'm sure there are a few situations where there are minimum wage workers paying union dues. Mind you I only personally know of one circumstance ... and that was someone I knew who was working in a textile plant about 25 years ago...and that plant closed about 15 years ago.

I would imagine that most situations where there are unionized "minimum wage workers" would be in low-paid sectors of the economy that are newly organized. Wage increases in general are maybe running at 2-3% these days and with that small an increase on a minimum wage, by the time the statutory increase kicks in your wage might be higher than what's in the collective agreement.

Other circumstances might be some "two-tier" contracts in the retail sector where part-time or new hires are paid at minimum wage till they've been around for awhile.

Anyway there are many reasons other than wages to belong to a union...and many have already posted on that subject.

But one very clear benefit of being covered by a collective agreement is the grievance/arbitration system. Its a system that you really don't have access to in any meaningful way unless you are unionized.

Also, its just about impossible to enforce occupational health and safety legislation without a union. Try doing an unsafe work refusal without being a member of a union. You'll be shown the door very quickly.

Most unions set their dues rates according to your income in some way so that if you don't make much money, you don't pay much in dues. The other thing...although it doesn't help too much if your income is already low, union dues are tax deductible.

Organizing is difficult at the best of times and progress can be frustratingly slow. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't organize.

I'd rather have a crummy corrupt bureaucratic union than no union at all.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 23 February 2005 09:56 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Quite right.

I actually wouldn't be that surprised if there were some unions that had bargained down wages for part-timers in exchange for wage hikes for others. The labour movement isn't perfect.

But I find this discussion about how a minimum wage worker might be better off without a union because of this totally make-belive scenario where they don't get a raise and still pay dues to be really fucking annoying.

To anyone out there making minimum wage: you will be better off if you form a union and fight to get a good contract. Guaranteed.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 24 February 2005 09:23 AM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by Burns:
quote:

Sorry, I just joined in and I read the thread quickly, but did CUPE Reformer ever provide a single example of a union that collects dues when it's member make minimum wage?

Because I've never ever ever ever ever EVER heard of that happening in Canada and it's a pretty bold claim to make without any evidence.

Yes, there are other reason to join a union other than wages. Yes, a union that leaves its members earning minimum wage is pretty pathetic. But before we type ourselves to death why don't we determine where and when this has actually happened - because I don't know a single union that would walk away from contract negotiations with employees earning minimum wage.

Sources?



Burns:

"... the minimum wage in Ontario was $7.00 per hour at the time the RCSS was done... RCSS Part-Time Food Department workers effective June 29, 2003: 0 to 300 hours - $7.00..."

Real Canadian Superstores: The UFCW's Low Wage Wasteland

[ 14 May 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 February 2005 09:27 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wow - is that really true that Walmart workers make more than unionized Loblaws workers? That's deplorable if so.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 24 February 2005 10:04 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I've been a trade unionist for over a decade and I can not think of a single time where a union has negotiated a first contract that left them earning LESS.
It just doesn't happen.
My union's policy is to not charge members dues until after a first contract has been negotiated. I'm not sure it's made much of a difference in organizing but at least it sounds fair. The union doesn't collect until it delivers.

From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
siggy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3354

posted 24 February 2005 11:00 AM      Profile for siggy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Because I've never ever ever ever ever EVER heard of that happening in Canada and it's a pretty bold claim to make without any evidence.
"B.C.’s general minimum wage is $8 per hour.". I am a ufcw 1518 retail member in long and good standing. I would be more than happy to provide anyone with copy of the ufcw1518/ofg cba (and B.C RCSS) - if you don't already own one - 'jes let me know [email protected]

Picture it - 1997 - ufcw 1518. Retail concessions are a dime a dozen and start rates are no exception. Specialty clerks start rate is $7.70, service clerks - a mere shadow - coming in at a whopping $7.00 per hr. Suffice to say the employer just shortly thereafter - when minimum wage was hiked to $8 - contrary to the 1518 CBA - was required by law - to up the start rate.

Ok - that was then and this is now you say? Good point! Picture it --> ufcw local 1518 - 2003-8. Keeping in mind there is a $6 *first job* rate - the 1518 start rates for 0-520 hours are $7.98 for some classifications.

Service clerk: 1041 to 1540 hrs - 2007 start rate - $7.82 (less dues and no doubt predicated on the employer's now legal right in B.C to participate in the abuse of children)

Demonstrator classification: 0-520 - $8.00.
520 to 1040 hours (2007) rate - $8.10. If and I stress if - a worker in this classification makes it to the 2601 hrs - in 2007 they could be earning $8.35 per hour.

Less dues of course and that's just a small sampling.

To save space (and just generally because MfD is a good source of union reality)
I'll point you to a thread regarding ufcw 1518's Mar '04 revised dues structure "Junior clerks (new hires) who previously had a base of $5 now pay basic $7 plus 1.02% of their gross.".

Using the $7 base + 1.02% x gross @ $8.10 per hr x 40 hrs a week - $10.30 dues = $7.85 per union hour --> no benies!

I guess that one could postulate that that's preposterous - who ever heard of a part-timer getting 40 hrs eh? Many part-timers do get 40 hours - they will just never qualify for benefits. They are also dinged for mandatory ufcw pension contribution of 3, 4 & 5% of which - the majority will never be vested in.

Now that's fucking annoying!


From: B.C. Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
unmaladroit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7325

posted 24 February 2005 11:20 AM      Profile for unmaladroit        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Burns:
Dude. You're talking shit about how there's all these unions collecting dues from minimum wage workers and when asked for proof you point to an article about how unions help minimum wage workers without collecting any goddam dues.

No dude, you're talking the shit. please quote me where i have said, (or even try to paraphrase where i've implied), that there are all these unions collecting dues from minimum wage workers.

in fact i have said no such thing, implied no such thing, and believe no such thing. if we were having this discussion in a bar, i wouldn't let you crap all over it with your wild imagination. i'm calling you on your bullshit accusations. prove it.

and to the article - you still don't get it - it isn't a union organizing low income workers, they are community based efforts "outside the context of labour unions."

don't confuse me with CUPE_Reformer who concocted what you call totally make-believe scenarios. in fact i charge that you have done just that to me.

'nuff said.


From: suspicionville, bc | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 February 2005 11:35 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the info CUPE_Reformer and siggy. Dammit, that sucks. Business unionism, eh?

My own experience with UFCW is that they were very willing to sign to 2-tiered agreement, discriminating against newcomers and providing our employer with a reason to get rid of the employees with more seniority. We used to call the top guy in Winnipeg "Fuerer number 1", i.e., Bernie Christoff, and the next guy "Fuerer number 2".

P.S. This can still be an interesting thread but you should probably START a thread with your evidence rather than waiting 4 days to post the link. There's way too many trolls that come here and just make up shit for their own amusement.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 24 February 2005 12:12 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:

"...the minimum wage in Ontario was $7.00 per hour at the time the RCSS was done...RCSS Part-Time Food Department workers effective June 29, 2003: 0 to 300 hours - $7.00..."

The minimum wage in Ontario on 29 June 2003 was $6.85. The minimum wage in Ontario remained $6.85 until 1 February 2004 when it was increased to $7.15. Your source contains clear factual errors -- one has to wonder what else is inaccurate.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
unmaladroit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7325

posted 24 February 2005 12:14 PM      Profile for unmaladroit        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
...There's way too many trolls that come here and just make up shit for their own amusement.

comrade beltov: this reeks of the "clique" argument in the "proposed new policy" thread.

i want to read this thread, and i want to contribute my point of view that is not anti-union but neither pro-union, but will find it increasingly difficult if there are troll comments thrown in, which i can only surmise is directed at me for not towing the pro-unionist line of thought. i've given my experiences as examples of a differing point-of-view from the low income workers' class, open to learning more about organizing unions. i'm reading the pro-union literature offered by robbie_dee in other threads, and reading every word of these threads.

but if that's the way you all want it, a closed-door tightly-run union discussion, then don't expect to convert this lifetime minimum wage earner. your calling "troll" is counter-productive.

whatever - you'll just think this is a pile of anti-union dung.


From: suspicionville, bc | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 February 2005 12:20 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
unmaladroit: you'll just think this is a pile of anti-union dung.

My most recent comment reflects my experience, is all. They weren't directed at you. Mind you, if you and Burns want to throw dung at each other don't let me stand in the way. This thread is finally getting interesting.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
unmaladroit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7325

posted 24 February 2005 12:36 PM      Profile for unmaladroit        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:

My most recent comment reflects my experience, is all. They weren't directed at you. Mind you, if you and Burns want to throw dung at each other don't let me stand in the way. This thread is finally getting interesting.


car!

whether you want to stand in the way is up to you, not us, and your troll comment did just that, got you involved in the game of pepper. so don't pretend to be innocent, you've contributed too.
8OP

muddy waters - i'm sure i'll be accused of derailing, even tho' i started being interested in the subject. but what you call "getting interesting", i call a "waste of my time trying to defend myself from unneccessary accusations".

babble on!


From: suspicionville, bc | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 February 2005 01:06 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I mean it is getting interesting because CUPE_Reformer and siggy decided to provide some evidence for their claims.

Edited to add: The CLC quote that I provided earlier in this thread has no such link to substantiate the claim about the benefit of union membership. Not that I disagree - I'd just like to see for myself.

[ 24 February 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
unmaladroit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7325

posted 24 February 2005 01:12 PM      Profile for unmaladroit        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
i agree, and am sorry for distracting. (it's difficult not defending oneself, isn't it?)

sincerely, my apologies.

last time: babble on!


From: suspicionville, bc | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 24 February 2005 01:54 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wow - is that really true that Walmart workers make more than unionized Loblaws workers? That's deplorable if so.

If you want further background, I've been maintaining a dedicated thread on Loblaws collective bargaining and employment practices for about a year and a quarter now, linked: here.

Also, thanks Siggy and C_R for your links. I am sure this will give us a fair bit to talk about.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 February 2005 02:10 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You know, it is interesting: in the past, in the history of the labour "movement" (or perhaps I should refer to "labour institutions" as noted in the link by CUPE_Reformer) the transition to newer methods of organizing typically met with resistance in the labour movement itself. Funny that I forgot that.

In the 30's for example, the argument was made that in difficult economic times it was impossible to fight back, much less go on strike. This sort of argument demobilized and demoralized people. New methods of organizing were found to overcome the one-sided "trade" or "craft" union approach that dominated labour institutions. Eventually, the new methods of organizing prevailed. Industry-wide unions are accepted as normal by the labour institutions themselves. But it took a nasty fight.

[ 24 February 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 25 February 2005 12:49 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In the BC situation mentioned by Siggy I would agree...that's a deplorable contract. There should have been some serious effort to push wages up.

The RCSS situation in Ontario is a bit different. It was part of a really complicated deal around Loblaw's converting stores to RCSS. So in some respects its like a "first contract" situation.

The contract did build in some job protections for long service full-time employees as Loblaw's converted their stores over. The other thing that happened is that UFCW didn't have to get into a big legal dustup over successor rights. Loblaw's recognized the union...something they didn't necessarily have to do with post Mike Harris labour laws.

One can play "Monday Morning Quarterback" and say that the "Walmart threat" card that Loblaw's played against UFCW wasn't real. But they thought for whatever reason that it was.

The deal also allowed the union to go after organizing Walmart without having to fight a war on a second front with Loblaw's in Ontario.

In the Los Angeles supermarket strike, I understand the union lost badly...and the fight was about the "Walmartization" of the industry.

There were some issues raised around government benefits on the linked article that I thought were a bit inaccurate. To qualify for EI sick benefits you have to have worked a minimum of 600 hours in the previous year...and you have a two week unpaid waiting period.

As for the references to the CPP disability pension and LTD, getting the CPP disability pension is nowhere as easy as the article suggests. You pretty much have to have "one foot in the grave" to get the CPP disability pension.

Yes the RCSS contract is a lousy deal for part-time workers. But hopefully by the time the next contract is signed, some Walmart stores will be organized and have collective agreements which will in turn allow for better collective agreements for RCSS workers.

I understand that in Newfoundland the CAW/RWDSU represents the folks at Loblaws. I would be interested in learning how they dealt with the whole Loblaws/RCSS situation.

Just one other comment. Prior to the 1930's the labour movment was dominated by the craft unions in North America. It was the launch of the CIO which brought the labour movement into mass production industries. Prior to that, wages and working conditions were probably just as bad as they are today in much of the service sector.

Public sector unionism arose in the 1960's in a big way.

I think that we do need a "new CIO" or some kind of "new unionism" to deal with the challenges that face us today.

[ 25 February 2005: Message edited by: radiorahim ]


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca