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   » Canadian union membership drops sharply

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Canadian union membership drops sharply
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 22 April 2005 11:16 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Union membership drops sharply, especially among young, male workers.

quote:
(Stats Can) said the drop in union coverage of young men has cost them money. "It accounts for about one-fifth of the 10 per cent drop in hourly wages young men experienced between 1981 and 1998..."

Apparently women are more class conscious than men. Time to help us dumb, backwards males.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
redlion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7638

posted 22 April 2005 11:34 AM      Profile for redlion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is of course exactly what the criminal classes, er, I mean the ruling classes, have wanted in order to drive down our wages and reduce our working conditions. It has also never been easy to unionize. I know of no other voluntary organization that has to leap through as many hurdles to gain legal recognition as unions do. All that should be needed is that a majority of workers join the union, but labor law requires a vote and an often lengthy time between signing up members and that vote. This allows the bosses time to intimidate the workers into not voting for certification. Certification ought to be automatic after the majority sign union cards.
From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 22 April 2005 11:39 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
redlion: Certification ought to be automatic after the majority sign union cards.

Anti-scab legislation, like the kind recently defeated in Parliament (I think it was a Private Members' Bill), is really also a necessity to prevent events like the ones in Yellowknife, NT a few years back. But there really needs to be a serious debate about organizing in this country like there is in the U.S. right now. Otherwise, their present may become our future.

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 22 April 2005 11:46 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
True. That said, the AFL-CIO would die to have these numbers.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 22 April 2005 11:57 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The last, great union organizing drives in North America took place - what? - 60 years ago or so. It was the industrial-based union organizing in the mass industries and there was resistance from some of the "trade" based unions. Another great drive is needed. But whereas in both the U.S. and Canada, organizations like the Communist Party sent activists to get the job done, there is no such equivalent organization today. But perhaps the idea is still sound: perhaps the labour movement needs help from outside. Comments?

Actually, in writing this I realize that I am trivializing the great public-sector organizing, particulary in Canada, that has gone on since the 1960's. Nevertheless, my question still stands.

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 22 April 2005 12:05 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, as long as they don't turn to some of the folks the Teamsters did.

Wal-Mart is to today what Ford and GM were to the 1930s. It is the symbol of the neo-liberal economy. There needs to be a high-profile organization drive of that entity. And in so doing, tactics such as the sit-ins of the 1930s and a boycott need to be considered.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
sock puppet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7739

posted 22 April 2005 12:24 PM      Profile for sock puppet   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wal-Mart is to today what Ford and GM were to the 1930s.
Exactly. And the economic progress of the middle classes has depended upon forcing economic leaders to raise employment standards through unionization (or the threat of it, as in the Stelco/Dofasco scenario).

By allowing Walmart to intimidate and crush unionization attempts, neo-liberal governments have engaged in class warfare against society's weakest.


From: toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 22 April 2005 12:50 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I see in today's Winnipeg Free Press that a group of employees at the (Quebec) Wal-Mart store that is scheduled to close on May 6 have filed a class action suit against Wal-Mart.

Hell, if Wal-Mart brings US-style labour relations to Canada, then why not bring U.S. style litigation to them? It's only fair. I will see if I can find a link for this Can-West story.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 22 April 2005 12:51 PM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't know if I shouldw start another thread about this, but I encountered this argument a few months ago, and it really bugged me: "Union threats of strikes and job action are the only legal form of coercion in North America". Now, I know this is not true, because if I do everything on my pre-designated, supposedly comprehensive 'task list' at work and then sit around for the remaining 3 hours of my shift, the boss can tell me to get to work or get another job, which really, I don't object to in the least... but can you guys help me out with this?

It came from a second year commerce student (in my experience first to third year commerce students are far and away the most rigid in thought of all business students, but obviously that doesn't hold for all), which means that no matter what kind of argument I come up with , I'm most likely dealing with a fairly entrenched belief that unions have FAR too much power, but how would I counter this with the most success?

I grew up in a town whose primary employers were the military, the school board, and then various retail. Beyond the school board, there was minimal union employment to be had, and you could tell- peoples' ideas of good jobs were those that got them a buck above minimum wage, so this idea that unions have too much power is something that leaves my head spinning.


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 22 April 2005 12:56 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I see in today's Winnipeg Free Press that a group of employees at the (Quebec) Wal-Mart store that is scheduled to close on May 6 have filed a class action suit against Wal-Mart.

Hell, if Wal-Mart brings US-style labour relations to Canada, then why not bring U.S. style litigation to them? It's only fair. I will see if I can find a link for this Can-West story.


Litigation is all well and good, and should definitely be pursued in this instance. But it can't be relied on alone, if for no other reason than who knows how long it will take, and must be complemented with some form of direct action.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 22 April 2005 01:01 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Amy quoted some Commerce zombie: "Union threats of strikes and job action are the only legal form of coercion in North America".

A steaming pile. It's a steaming pile because the state has a monopoly on the use of force in society. That's what the state is - it's the sole institution that has the legitimate use of force at it's disposal. And there's practically an infinite number of examples of coercion by the state. All that your commerce zombie wants is to end the "coercion" that benefits working people. Does your acquiaintance oppose the use of the police to scab-herd (escort scabs into a workplace that is in a lockout or strike situation)? That's coercion.

You should ask him if he's paying for this crap or whether they're paying him to suck it up.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 22 April 2005 01:03 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm most likely dealing with a fairly entrenched belief that unions have FAR too much power, but how would I counter this with the most success?

I don't know if there is a way to counter this with "success" because you will often find that people who hold beliefs like this, tend to do so almost religiously. You could ask your friend whether he plans on just accepting at face value the first job offer he receives when he graduates, or if he intends to try and negotiate any of the terms. Because that's what unions do - they negotiate on behalf of the workers who belong to them. Workers have just as much right to negotiate together as they do separately. Realistically, they will only be able to have any negotiating power if they do so together.

The only reason why union workers go on strike is if the employer's proposed terms are unacceptable. If an employer's first offer wasn't acceptable to your friend, would he go work for the employer anyway? Would he quit? Or would he make a counter-offer?


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

posted 22 April 2005 01:08 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
josh: Litigation .... can't be relied on alone, if for no other reason than who knows how long it will take, and must be complemented with some form of direct action.

Well, yea. It might even be good to have a short-term AND a long-term strategy when it comes to organizing Wal-Marts.

I'd like to see some way that the "Wake Up Wal-Mart" and other campaigns make a big effort to draw people from outside the labour movement (or institutions) as well. It's a "social justice" issue that the labour movement needs to articulate the general social well-being that flows from a positive solution.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 22 April 2005 02:27 PM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The biggest drops in union membership were reported in British Columbia and New Brunswick.

Not a surprise. In my opinion the IWA (CLC), and the Canadian Labour Congress/BC Federation of Labour screwed many members of the Hospital Employees' Union (CLC).

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 22 April 2005 03:08 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:
The biggest drops in union membership were reported in British Columbia and New Brunswick.

Not a surprise. In my opinion the IWA (CLC), and the Canadian Labour Congress/BC Federation of Labour screwed many members of the Hospital Employees' Union (CLC).

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]



The effective action of unions against a liberal and corporate dictatorships should be and is everyones concern. This is just one more reminder going into the election in BC, about rolling back negotiated wages and destroying contracts.

Better to pay attention to this. Keep the troops in line from making "clactualizations," that your group is speaking about. Like all corporate strategies to reduce companies to the few, the conservative effort is to make stronger unions not disparaged groups that screw up the system for everyone else.


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 24 April 2005 04:59 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Union membership drops sharply, especially among young, male workers.
Apparently women are more class conscious than men. Time to help us dumb, backwards males.

I think this is really about high degrees of union organization in female-dominated jobs in the public sector and about the continued relative decline of manufacturing, mining and forestry. Today's growing companies in the private sector aren't unionized and on the whole, there isn't a lot of work being put into organizing them.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  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