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   » Unions in Canada

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Unions in Canada
debator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11827

posted 25 February 2006 12:41 AM      Profile for debator     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anyone who has read my posts will be able to discern that I am generally a right wing thinker. Having said that, I truly wish to understand why people think that unions are important in this day and age. I am not trying to be antagonistic here; rather I wish to understand different points of view.

To preface my views, I wish to acknowledge the role labour unions have made in the developed world. I generally credit them with the establishment of a minimum wage, the creation of regulated labour standards through legislation, and many other protections now enabled through various federal and provincial legislation.

However my viewpoint is such that most labour negotiations I have witnessed (packers strike, SK nurses, etc.) have always seemed to be about money, and seem to ignore economic realities. I haven't yet seen a strike or other labour issue surrounding what I would deem an 'unfair' labour practice. Furthermore, doesn't current labour legislation essentially duplicate the services of the union in a developed world? (Of course this same argument doesn't apply to the developing world, like Mexican mines . . .) I see this as saying that the existence of unions is no longer necessary in the developed world, and that membership would be declining as a result (would you pay a union due to receive the same services/protection as someone else who doesn't). My viewpoint would seem to be supported by HRSDC statistics showing that although the workforce is increasing at a rate of 1.7% (2004 to 2005), the union workforce is only increasing at a rate of 0.3% (2004 - 2005).

When responding to this, please understand that I am wishing to engage in a discussion in order to understand different points of view, not trying to antagonize. I apologize if my thoughts are taken in a confrontational manner. Thanks.

[ 25 February 2006: Message edited by: debator ]


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
The Wizard of Socialism
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2912

posted 25 February 2006 01:59 AM      Profile for The Wizard of Socialism   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Have fun up on the cross buddy. Remember, have them hammer the nails in your wrists. Your palms won't support your weight. Believe me, I know.
From: A Proud Canadian! | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Toedancer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10934

posted 25 February 2006 02:00 AM      Profile for Toedancer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well it is a very good question you pose to all of these workers.

However, currently being a cupe 79 supporter in the past, I would say NO(regardless of union dues paid in full). They proved to be worse than useless in the end.


From: Ontario | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 25 February 2006 02:12 AM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hi debator:

I'm no expert but will attempt to explain where those of us who support both the existence of unions and (most) unions themselves might be coming from.

You said:

quote:
To preface my views, I wish to acknowledge the role labour unions have made in the developed world. I generally credit them with the establishment of a minimum wage, the creation of regulated labour standards through legislation, and many other protections now enabled through various federal and provincial legislation.

You're right that unions have worked hard and fought over issues such as wages, working conditions, working hours (the 8 hour day is fond memory for many) and various other employment related issues. You're right that some protections exist at both federal and provincial levels of government but, without the ongoing active engagement of unions, these protections would likely disappear overnight. Governments did not create these (now meager and often unenforceable) programs out of benevolence or caring, they created them because there was a great deal of pressure from the citizenry, often led or backed by unions, to do so. Those governments backed by the business community would like nothing better than to leave these systems in tatters 'til they don't need to provide them anymore.

The minimums are not satisfactory, in many cases, and so unions are still necessary within their own sectors to ensure workers are not treated as commodities. Working people's lives amount to any kind of contract -- we trade our labour for money and other benefits. Money is important to living decently as all indicators of health will state. It also helps to educate oneself and one's children, pay the mortgage or rent in a current market, engage in healthy activities, etc. Money is also what gets coverage in the media. There are lots of other issues that unions address such as pensions, equality, environmental concerns, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean about not knowing of unions working against unfair labour practices. The postal strike of 1981 was all about striking for paid maternity leave which, on the surface is about money, but really is about equality for women. Working for fair labour practices is part of many, if not most, collective bargaining processes. You won't often hear about these kinds of details with the cursory (and often biased or misinformed) analysis given in the media. Seniority status and what it specifically means in each job sitation, is about establishing fair labour practices although I realize that it's much maligned amongst those who don't understand it. It is one tool in attempting to bring fairness to opportunities in the workplace and prevention of preferential treatment on the basis of personality, looks, or friendship with a supervisor.

Unions, with the wages and benefits that they can secure for their members, also provide a stop, if you will, against a race to the bottom.

There's no reason to accept business community's spin on economic realities. Increasingly, today's workers are being asked to accept more and more of the economic downturns by cuts to pay or benefits without the return when economic times are good. Look at the stock market these days -- business is apparently booming in Canada, apparently there are lots of jobs but who can live on these wages? Economic realities for working people amount to what a home costs to run, paying for daycare, food, user fees of various kinds, etc. Why should we work for a loss in order to provide a source of profit for a business or corporation? Why should we live like paupers in retirement while the corporations take pension contributions and turn them into profits for themselves? These are the kinds of questions that unions ask -- these and many more.

Unions, like any other organizations, can lose sight of their purpose, they can become corrupted with someone's personal agenda, they can lose their heart and give up and they can be subject to a leader's dishonesty. This is no different from any other group in which people work together. Sadly, not only does it hurt their members but it serves those who oppose the idea that people can make decisions collectively that serve the common good.

You also mentioned percentages of unionized workers being down. This has been attributed to the increasing number of part-time and casual workers, percentage-wise, and these are the least likely people to be organized within a union structure. The companies for whom many of them work engage in unfair tactics against union drives, have threatened to close and have closed following successful union organizing campaigns, they isolate workers from each other by legal means (the hotel is separate from the restaurant as a legal entity therefore, even though the hotel is unionized, it doesn't follow that the restaurant is), have spied on those who support workers....court cases have clearly demonstrated this in some cases that I've read of but someone else would have to provide a link for you.

These organizations have big money and fight hard against unions because they want to get away with paying minimum wages and no benefits, period. That's why union membership is "down". That and the reductions in formerly strongly organized sectors such a mining and forestry.

Anyway, I'm long-winded and probably didn't answer your question. There are lots of people on this board with more knowledge in this area than I have but I thought I'd jump in there.


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 25 February 2006 02:33 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by debator:
To preface my views, I wish to acknowledge the role labour unions have made in the developed world. I generally credit them with the establishment of a minimum wage, the creation of regulated labour standards through legislation, and many other protections now enabled through various federal and provincial legislation.

Throughout history business lobbies have fought very hard against all of those protections. One of the reasons these protections remain is because of pressure from organised labour. One of the reasons why in Manitoba the minimum wage doesn't rise as much as it needs to and that employment standards in agriculture aren't where they need to be is because of pressure from businesses.

quote:
Originally posted by debator:
However my viewpoint is such that most labour negotiations I have witnessed (packers strike, SK nurses, etc.) have always seemed to be about money, and seem to ignore economic realities. I haven't yet seen a strike or other labour issue surrounding what I would deem an 'unfair' labour practice. Furthermore, doesn't current labour legislation essentially duplicate the services of the union in a developed world? (Of course this same argument doesn't apply to the developing world, like Mexican mines . . .) I see this as saying that the existence of unions is no longer necessary in the developed world, and that membership would be declining as a result (would you pay a union due to receive the same services/protection as someone else who doesn't). My viewpoint would seem to be supported by HRSDC statistics showing that although the workforce is increasing at a rate of 1.7% (2004 to 2005), the union workforce is only increasing at a rate of 0.3% (2004 - 2005).

Yes, money is a big issue in union negotiations. What happens during negotiations is the negotiators will look at the facts, and try to get the best deal it can for its workers. Sometimes, the employer doesn't want to play nicely, so that's when disputes (i.e. strikes and lockouts) cause problems. If you have union negotiators lobbying for the best deal for their workers, and the employers trying to get away with paying the employees as little as they can, that's going to cause problems. And I can assure you that a decision to strike is not taken lightly. Workers have the most to lose during a strike, because if the employer can at least manage during the dispute, the employer can stall negotiations to the point where the workers may accept less. Strikes and lockouts aren't any fun for the union negotiators either, because on the one hand they face pressure from their workers to get this thing settled so they can get back to work, and on the other hand they face pressure from the employers hoping the negotiators will buckle.

As for the trend of declining unionisation? Some people have reservations about belonging to a union, I admit, however the reasons are complex. Another factor is that employers have been known to intimidate union organisers in workplaces, so people don't show enthusiasm for unions for fear of losing their jobs.

I hope this answers your questions.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 25 February 2006 10:52 AM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
anyone who thinks the government and the employers are going to "take care of" or "look out for" workers needs to wake up and smell the coffee. "Contracting out" is a big one in union negotiations. "Contracting out" means the job goes to India, or China, or... and another job is lost here...

Like your weekend? Enjoy having Boxing Day off? There isn't one single thing I can think of which improves life for workers and their families which came because Government and the employers were hit with a wish to be generous and kindly.

Virtually every safety standard in this country came only because men like my grandpa were willing to put it ALL on the line and stand firm while women like my grandma risked having their children go hungry in order to support the union.

You won't find most of it in books, especially school books because the government you trust so much and the companies you seem to find decent still control education. Don't ask US to educate you, go find some of those old people, the ones whose fingers are twisted, knuckles swollen and knobby from too much brutally hard work for too many years. Buy them a pot of tea and a stickybun and then LISTEN to them.

Listen to the news today; miners in Mexico, miners in China, miners in the southern U.S. trapped and suffocating for lack of the kind of safety standards the unions demanded and got in Canada.

I suspect it's damp under your bridge and normally I try hard to avoid the trap of feeding the trolls but when it comes to even a backhanded attack on unions I'm ready to tilt any windmill you can produce.

When I'm Queen of the World things will be unionized! Every job in every industry.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 25 February 2006 10:52 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The old "unions have outlived their useful purpose because employers and governments are so enlightened now" schtick. The Toronto Globe had an editorial to that effect back in .... May, 1886.

Some things change, some things remain the same.

Here's a link to an article on the BC Federation of Labour's website that might answer some of your questions:

BC Federation of Labour - Union Facts

[ 25 February 2006: Message edited by: radiorahim ]


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 25 February 2006 11:44 AM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's an excellent piece, radioahim.
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 25 February 2006 12:36 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Earth to "debator": Google.ca is your friend.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 25 February 2006 12:48 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Furthermore, doesn't current labour legislation essentially duplicate the services of the union in a developed world? (Of course this same argument doesn't apply to the developing world, like Mexican mines . . .)

Mexican mines aren't as far away as you think. There's a good article in this week's Georgia Straight on the plight of the working poor in this spectacularly rich country.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 25 February 2006 02:01 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for that link, b2.

That article is now in my personal electronic clipping files.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 25 February 2006 02:10 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
After more than a century, this whole thing does get rather tiresome.

Does anyone question the continued "usefulness" of the Canadian Banker's Association, the Canadian Manufacturer's Association, the Business Council on National Issues (or Council of CEO's...whatever d'Aquino's calling it these days), various "Chambers of Commerce" and all these other kinds of business organizations?

Does anyone talk about the damage to our economy and social well-being brought about by "organized business".

When working folks organized to defend their interests it's somehow illegitimate. But its perfectly legitimate for business to organize.

They organize to bring about things like so-called "free trade", globalization, deregulation, privatization, cuts in social spending along with tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

They "hold the public up for ransom" by saying "give us what we want or we'll put you all out of work". And for the most part this past few decades governments around the world have caved into the demands of organized business.

"Organized business" is out of control. It has way too much power in our society. We needs some "organized business busting" legislation real soon because we can't afford organized business' "unreasonable demands". I mean..."they'll bankrupt the country".

Organized business helps prop up inefficient and antiquated industries through things like the "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" in the U.S. and similar legislation proposed by defeated Liberal Sarmite Bulte (that'll probably be brought back by Bev Oda).

Its organized business that's lead to the "Windows" logo appearing on 90% of the desktop computers in the world.

Its organized business that's slowed the development of mass transit, alternative energy sources and fights every effort at protecting the environment.

Isn't it time we "declared war" on the power of "organized business"?


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 February 2006 02:21 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by radiorahim:
Isn't it time we "declared war" on the power of "organized business"?

Well-intentioned, but a little too radical. Maybe we can start by questioning whether "organized business" has outlived its usefulness.

No doubt, capitalism once served a purpose. We needed to chase peasant producers off the land and chain them economically to the Industrial Revolution's newly minted machines.We needed to plunder the New World and disinherit and slaughter its inhabitants. We needed to bring civilization to such unwashed savage places as Africa, India, China... We were White, we were Men, and we had a christian Burden to bear across the globe! Yeah!

But now, I believe, the case can be made that "business" has done its job. Just look at this world that it has bequeathed to us. Time to move over and let someone else do the job.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 25 February 2006 09:26 PM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd love to be a unionized worker but no such luck yet. My first brush with union organizing was a leaflet under my windshield wiper. The UFCW was sniffing around the Staples Call Centre in Lower Sackville. I immediately called the number and was invited out to coffee by the organizer. The only thing was I wasn't sticking around that job, so I just passed along useful information. Immediately, management loosened some of those draconian call centre rules and tweaked the benefits. Drive over.

My next employer was in the middle of fending off a union when I arrived (not sure which one), and over the next three years the CAW and CUPW took a crack at it. I was still totally out the loop as a new employee so I barely even knew about the CAW attempt. I actually signed a card for CUPW and even went out of way to visit their office (not that out-of-the way as it was a block from my apt.), but was met by apathy and resignation when I offered my help. Well, at least I actually signed a union card for once in my life.

The main problem is call centre workers are herded like cattle or ruled over like galley slaves (I picture the Balrog with a whip standing behind me as I provide my customer service). But also, they often see unions as career barriers, especially younger and educated workers. The cream call centre jobs in the governments are made inaccessible due to unions, or at least that's the perception. Heck, it says so right on the job applications. More or less, unless you're already a member, good friggin luck.


From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 26 February 2006 09:48 AM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Anyone who has read my posts will be able to discern that I am generally a right wing thinker. Having said that, I truly wish to understand why people think that unions are important in this day and age. I am not trying to be antagonistic here; rather I wish to understand different points of view.

The fact is that unions represent the principle of Collective Bargaining in much the same way as a corporation or individual represents a party in a contractual agreement.

When you contract to build a house or mow a lawn there have to be two parties involved and they agree to terms. For years unions have fought and continue to fight to get recognition as the legal representative of the employees in their contractual arrangements with their employers.

Today in every level of the civil service where unions are the largest (if not the most vociferous) the practice by the employer is to undermine this principle through a series of individualized "contracts" and "employment agreements". You would be, in the absence of a collective agreement won by the union, forced to sign these offensive documents in order to stay employed. The irony is they really mean little other than to provide justification for the massive bureucracies in both the public and private sector known as "management".

Unions are essential because they create what the landed wealthy and aristocrats have had for centuries, which few but the most extreme sectarian radicals would oppose - job security.

In the general scheme of things labour is a commodity like everything else but unions can control its supply and thereby increase its value to society. This has meant a better quality of life for everyone.

Ask any manager type if they would, for example, lay-off 100 people for an extra $20,000 a year or quit there job. How many management careerists would quit there job? Virtually none, I'd wager.

In the absence of unions in both the public and private sector (and the guiding principles behind them) much of our current society would collapse into a dark age.

Moreover in the absence of standardized wages and benefits, job classifications, and even the byzantine HR bureaucaracies in modern organizations, you would have utter chaos. Can you imagine every employee having their own personal contract of service, their own wage rate, their own benefit package, hours of work schedule etc.?

Moreover, ask any person working if there is a better way to do things. Almost every one of them would say there is. Most managers believe that they could do the work with workers making halfthe wage and wotrking longer hours even while at the same time they lament that fact that they themselves are underpaid.

Buz Hargrove is a good union leader but he is wavering under the onslaught of writer's premise.Union leaders deserve our support but they rarely get it. I am highly critical of Hargrove's strategic voting initiative and think he should be kicked out of the NDP. But this is a result of he fact that unions are seeking to improve their political profile. To impress a new generation of people with the benefits of unionism they must see the results. Young people today have difficulty seeing the benefits of unionism because they do not understand that unionism represents the lawful organization of society for the mutual benefit of many of its citizens.It is an organizing principle of the progressive status quo. It could be more but the union movement in Canada is more progressive than that in the US which is reactionary and hidebound to teh extreme...

Collective bargaining is needed so long as the law of contract governs our social arrangements in the market system. If this is true then unions are needed as much as corporations are even in purely market terms. Someone needs to sign on the dotted line.

The benefits are the consumer society and a productive market that is subject to the modifications unions can negotiate on behalf of the worker and her environment.

This is beneficial and should be expanded on. Therefore we need more unions and better attitudes toward them not less.

[ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: Boinker ]


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 26 February 2006 11:56 AM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
kudos to Loretta and boinker for their excellent posts. debator asks about the relavancy of labour unions in the current time, and as it has been pointed out, why is the relavancy of business associations and Chambers of Commerce not questioned? Think tanks like the Fraser Institute and the C.D. Howe Institute, the Montreal Forum, Council of Chief Executives, federal and provincial Taxpayer Federations, are all trotted out by the mainstream media as authoritative pundits on the state of things economic, and the logic and political motives of said groups are rarely questioned. Make no mistake, they have one purpose, and that is to promote the free market, and the individual and unfettered right to make a profit with as little restriction as possible. How is it in the face of widespread economic imbalance among the public, obvious attacks on the minimum standards of workplace safety and conditions, the drive to push wages and benefits to ever lower levels and the social destruction that this "everyone for themselves" attitude creates is not considered outdated given the huge profits and trumpeted economic boom we are enjoying according to the press reports?

As Boinker pointed out, this is about contract law. Period. There exists only one available set of laws on the books in Canada that allows an employee of a company to negotiate thier wages and working conditions, ABOVE THE MINIMUM STANDARDS IN THE LABOUR CODE, in a LEGALLY BINDING FASHION, and that is collective bargaining, and unions are the legallally recognised agent for this process. The labour code is constantly tinkered with by politics and the government of the day, who try to tilt the standards in the favour of whomever their ideology supports. Your Collective Agreement on the other hand is a legally binding document holding your employer to the wages and conditions negotiated regardless of who is in office or what the Labour Minister would like to change to suit the mood of the day.

If I was a lightbulb supplier to your company, I would have a contract with you guaranteeing an agreed upon price for my product and services with associated rules regarding delivery and what would happen should I fail to live up to the terms of said contract.

Why is it as a human being, I am expected to exchange my knowlege, expertise and time, without the same guarantees of compensation and workplace conditions that a lightbulb has?

I am a shop steward, and have been for 13 years. Quite often my only role is that of third party mediator. In most cases the employer has the cards and the employee is on the defensive. If you are faced with an "our word against yours" situation, a collective agreement provides you with the legal clout to ask for documentation, evidence of thier claims against you and a transparent process of dicipline that is agreed upon by both parties during negotiations, that MUST be followed to provide a fair and just hearing for the person in trouble. In 13 years I have never had to file a formal grievance simply because most management claims against employees are based on misunderstandings, personal dislike for an employee, personal bias against employees in general (very common) or total misinformation provided by either party. Just the fact that I am required to be present creates a situation that both sides of the issue must be discussed instead of one side getting to ram their version of events through as fact.

Allow me to address the issue that "unions protect lazy workers" at this point. This is actually impossible in most contracts. Usually the first article of any collective agreement is that of "Management Rights". This clause covers ANYTHING that is not subsequently spelled out and agreed to in the rest of the agreement. With few exceptions, contracts cover hours of work, working conditons, wages, benefits, and health and safety issues. Governing condidtions like seniorty and hiring proceedures are also there ensuring fair treatment in promotions and holiday scheduling. And that is about it.

Everything else falls under "Management Rights". Performance of an employee is a mangagement issue. If an employee is lazy or doesn't work to the level of thier co-workers, it is managements sole responsibility to adress this and no contract that I know of is any different. The Union's role at that point is to provide representation for the employee to make sure they are treated fairly while being diciplined. If there is merit to the employer's claim then the employee can be fired. Simple rules of engagement. This process protects both sides in my opinion, but if the management side refuses to manage and allows an unproductive/disruptive/"lazy" employee to continue such behaviour, the the union has little to no say regarding this. It is simply not the job of any union to make people work, that is Managements sole purpose as I see it. So, unions don't protect lazy workers, inneffective or weak mangagers do.

I'm sure I'll have more to say in the future. It is interesting to note that while I used the term "shop steward" my actuall legal title is "Chapel Chairperson". This is a confusing term to some so I use the more common "steward" but the origins of the title are important, and stem from the days that organisising and speaking out for your rights as a worker could get you blackballed, beaten up, or killed, and folks were forced to go underground per se and meet in church basements which are neutral ground and safe havens.


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 26 February 2006 12:04 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As for me, I've pretty much always questioned the relevancy of the stock market; I truly wish to know why people think it's important in this day and age.
From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 26 February 2006 12:09 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by farnival:
It is interesting to note that while I used the term "shop steward" my actuall legal title is "Chapel Chairperson". This is a confusing term to some so I use the more common "steward" but the origins of the title are important, and stem from the days that organisising and speaking out for your rights as a worker could get you blackballed, beaten up, or killed, and folks were forced to go underground per se and meet in church basements which are neutral ground and safe havens.

Great overall post, farnival.

"Chapel" is a pretty ancient British trade union term used primarily (as far as I know) by the printers' unions. The head of the Chapel was actually known as the "mother" or "father". Eugene Forsey writes about the 1879 strike of Saint John’s members of the ITU against the Daily Sun to protest the firing of the father of the union chapel.

[ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 26 February 2006 12:09 PM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brebis noire:
As for me, I've pretty much always questioned the relevancy of the stock market; I truly wish to know why people think it's important in this day and age.

I challenge the relevancy of our banks or corporate CEOs everywhere.


From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 26 February 2006 12:15 PM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
nice one unionist. I am in fact in the print industry. actually while the rest of the segments of our union have neutralised the language to a degree to make it more inclusive, ie: shop delegate instead of steward, the newspaper divisions of which i am part of, still use the older, traditional terms, something that I think is a way to remind us all of the sacrifices and proud tradition of activism that we share.
From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 26 February 2006 12:23 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Love this image as well as the meaning behind it.

quote:
Why is it as a human being, I am expected to exchange my knowlege, expertise and time, without the same guarantees of compensation and workplace conditions that a lightbulb has?

Also completely agree with these two comments (below) but do think it's important to address the widely-held views in society with respect to the legitimacy of the stock market, CEOs and the like as the indicators of societal well-being. Anyone see "Who's Counting", the NFB Film critiquing how the GDP gets calculated? It's a must see for those who are in the beginning stages of wondering about our world-wide economic system. It was completely mind-altering for me.

quote:
As for me, I've pretty much always questioned the relevancy of the stock market; I truly wish to know why people think it's important in this day and age.

quote:
I challenge the relevancy of our banks or corporate CEOs everywhere.

[ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 26 February 2006 12:28 PM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We still have an NFB office here in Halifax (I bet its the only one left East of Montreal), so I'll have to borrow or buy that movie.
From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 26 February 2006 12:30 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think Debator was answered more than fully, and with much civility, also. I'd like to quicky add some stuff.

quote:
However my viewpoint is such that most labour negotiations I have witnessed (packers strike, SK nurses, etc.) have always seemed to be about money, and seem to ignore economic realities. I haven't yet seen a strike or other labour issue surrounding what I would deem an 'unfair' labour practice. Furthermore, doesn't current labour legislation essentially duplicate the services of the union in a developed world?

In the first place, worker's wages is part of economic reality. I know it's part of my economic reality.

Unfair labour practices usually mean bargaining in bad faith. I guess it could also mean issues like contracting out, plant closures (job security) and a whole host of issues. And people do strike over these issues. The newspapers find them rather complicated to report on, however, so generally they either don't, or do a poor job of it.

Others mentioned that government does a poor job protecting non unionized workers.

While we have all these nice laws, without an affordable advocate, they really don't mean anything. They might as well not be there.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 27 February 2006 08:10 AM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I also question why it is that being a "businessman" or "businessperson" (suspiciously there are rarely "businesswomen") is enough of a qualification to run for public office! And why are labour and unions refered to as "special interest groups" when there are hundreds of business think tanks, lobbyists, and associations advocating for and protecting the interests of business everywhere who are treated as authorities on whatever subject they are expounding on but unions and labour advocates are considered biased and beholden to ideology? Why are the Cons and Libs given a free pass for being in the pocket of business, but the NDP is considered "tainted" by their connection to organised labour? Why is the debate about the relavancy of unions today when the playing field is so lopsided it is comparable to the Canadian Women's Hockey team at Turin in favour of business!

How does training for and pursuing a career in the pursuit of private gain and capital accumulation, for entirely personal benefit, somehow qualify you to represent the public interest and use the tax revenue collected from the citizenry in a responsible and publicly beneficial way?

I did a check of the parliamentary website with elected members bio's last summer (very slow days!) and almost without exception the Libs and Cons elected MPs listed "businessman" as their first qualification on experience. Now to put this into a labour context, if you only have business people in public office, and one of them is named the Labour Minister, or like in the case of Belinda Stronach, put in charge of Employment Insurance, how can we expect any protection of legislation guarding workers rights and safety? Magna is one of the largest users of temp workers in this country. Specifically to provide a low cost alternative to unionised labour in the big auto makers, they specifically hire temp workers to get around labour laws and contract law. And the Liberals put the worst offender in charge of these workers well being! Stunning! And then Buzz Hargrove goes campaigning with her! Also stunning considering her family's company is directly responsible for the huge losses of his members jobs due to contracting out to Magna!

So, once again, collective agreements protect you as an employee regardless of political change, and if your own union leadership suddenly gets a boner for "businesspeople" and forgets to look out for your best interests too.


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 27 February 2006 09:02 AM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
in addition, never forget that until Paul Martin, then darling of the G8 and Finance Minister extrordinaire, with his 1994/94 budget, simultaneously cut federal transfer payments to the provinces and in the process creating the current "crisis" in health care funding, and "reformed" Unemployment Insurance by changing it's name to "Employment Insurance", increased premiums to workers and employers alike, and decreased eligibility from around 85% of those who contributed to now about 40%. If you are fired or quit because your workplace is no longer bearable, you are ineligable for EI, even though you have contributed for your entire working life to essentially an insurance plan that should provide income for you in this event.

I learned recently that almost 95% of all cases that were disputed on eligability for EI were ruled in favour of the claimant (employee). The key here is "disputed". That means you need some form of legal representation. This is automatically included in the services you recieve from your union in exchange for your union dues. If you are non-union, you must try to fight this on your own, with your own funding and expertise, and most can't afford it and don't have the time! This is but one example of what your dues provide.

I like to joke with the frothing anti-union types, particularly those under 40, a demographic who has been bombarded and indoctrinated by anti-union, anti-labour, and pro-market forces as the solution to every societal ill since we were born. Often this age group has very litte exposure to the benefits of belonging to organised labour and buy into the "every man for themselves" school of success. Well, this is all well and good if you are self-employed in a lucrative business, but what if all you can get is contract work....for 15 years! (insert CBC example now).

My joke is to present the option of "Job Insurance". Oh? What's that? Well, you know about life insurance right? Yup. Ok, so you know that most people buy life insurance even when they don't need it, since unless you have dependants, or liablilities such as property or a business, you don't really need it, right? Well, yeah they say. Ok, then, how about an insurance plan that with a small premium based on your net earnings for the month, you can have job insurance, that will provide you with a way to negotiate your pay rate and working conditions in a way that is legally binding and with your well being in mind? Sounds great! is usually the reply, is that all? Oh, no, in fact should you ever have a problem at work or are diciplined for any reason, my company's legal staff will represent you in any action against you to ensure you get a fair hearing on the situation. Wow! Really? Yes, and that's not all. Should you have to leave your job due to personal issues or because even in the event that your problems were solved but the workplace atmosphere has been irrevocably poisoned due to the situation (ie:whistleblower), my representative will help you apply for and advise you in your Employment Insurance claim. We even keep a dialogue open with other employers and will recommend you to them if you should be interested.

At this point, the person is skeptically smiling and says that sound great but I should stop dreaming. At this point I inform them they have just joined a union. Ha!


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 27 February 2006 09:29 AM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
farnival, I believe under-40 people would be more pro-union if more of them had union jobs. Existing union jobs are viewed as impossible to get and unions have poor histories in organizing the jobs under-40s have. Frankly, the fact that unions are becoming more public sector and less private sector is a huge problem as it appears that unions just protect a fortunate few who were easy to organize and had high incomes already.
From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 27 February 2006 09:55 AM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I couldn't agree more. That is why the "job insurance" thing would be funny if it wasn't so unfortunate. There has been a concerted effort in the private sector to specifically exploit the loopholes in labour legislation to make it very difficult for the average person to organise a union. Companies have aggressively expanded the use of part time and temporary, and contract workers to specifically avoid having to make EI contributions, pay benefits, guarantee hours of work etc. The list of dodges is quite long. Only through education and media coverage is it possible to empower the under 40 group, but with funding cuts that are ideologically driven to education and the corporate media bias creating a negative impression of the very language used to describe labour this is very difficult indeed.

This group also forgets, in the ultimate irony, that the over 40 demographic that is telling them that there are no "jobs for life" and they are dreaming if they think they can get a "union" job (remember that unions don't run companies, they just legally represent workers at said companies) are the same people who owe their current success to long term employment and likely union bargained contracts. For those who worked in non-union sectors, the gains made in the unionised workforce directly transferred to them because employers were afraid of losing talent to the better paying union jobs.

We are also in a phase of work history where the trades are treated by business and the media as an also-ran kind of job. If you couldn't be a lawyer or business school graduate, you get a job as plumber. The joke is that since tradespeople are in short supply, most are running quite lucrative carreers where the average salary for a journeyman is anywhere from $40,000 to over $100,000 a year!

[ 27 February 2006: Message edited by: farnival ]


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
slimpikins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9261

posted 27 February 2006 06:13 PM      Profile for slimpikins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why is it that so many Union jobs are hard to get? May be the higher wages, better working conditions, benefits, etc. That alone makes Unions relevant today.

Add to that the fact that business 'leaders' are cutting and slashing everything that Unions have fought hard for in the past, and there is another reason why they are so needed. Not only do Unions have to fight hard for new improvements, sometimes they have to go to the wall just to keep what is already there, like pensions, health coverage, dental, and the like.

So, it isn't the Unions fault that they are a barrier to getting a job in a Unionized workplace. It is that other, similar workplaces are not Unionized. Those workers who have experience already are grabbing those jobs due to the gains that the Unions have made there, and the other, lower paying jobs are available. Should those other workplaces become Unionized, in time they would be comparable to the Union shops, and when the whole industry is Unionized then conditions, pay, and treatment would be the same across the board, resulting in good jobs for all.


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 27 February 2006 11:26 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So, it isn't the Unions fault that they are a barrier to getting a job in a Unionized workplace. It is that other, similar workplaces are not Unionized. Those workers who have experience already are grabbing those jobs due to the gains that the Unions have made there, and the other, lower paying jobs are available. Should those other workplaces become Unionized, in time they would be comparable to the Union shops, and when the whole industry is Unionized then conditions, pay, and treatment would be the same across the board, resulting in good jobs for all.
quote:

Before the great organizing drives of the late 1930's and 1940's industrial jobs paid crap, had long hours and were very dangerous...just the way alot of the service industry jobs are today.

It was the creation of the CIO that changed all of that.

What we need is a "new CIO"...or at least efforts on that scale to begin organizing the service industries so that we can raise living standards there as well.

This year UNITE-HERE is engaged in a major fight with the hotel industry in about 20 cities across the continent. Part of what they're trying to achieve is "non-interference" agreements from the corporations in new organizing drives.

Its important to achieve that since labour laws do nothing to protect workers involved in organizing drives from employer initimidation.

Perhaps this is a small sign of that "new CIO" that needs to happen in the service sector.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 28 February 2006 08:07 AM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
rr, you are right on here. essentially the original question posed by debator was are unions needed at this point, given the labour laws on the books. Well, as you point out, during the period that people try to begin organising, and when they actually get a successful vote to organise, the labour laws do nothing to protect them from all the shenanigans that employers will use to discourage thier employees from organsing. this includes threatenting to shut down said business and move it (wallmart, magna, and the infamous John Buhler in Manitoba, Farm King owner, who bought Massey-Ferguson here in Ontario, then locked everyone out and threatened to move to the US), personal intimidation that can be physical or mental. you name it they try it.

The same tactics that have kept the service sector and garment industries cowed, are now being used successfully in the so-called white collar industries too (once again, CBC is a prime example).

while I'm haven't read his books, I have heard Andy Stern from the SEIU speak to this very inspiringly.

http://www.seiu.org/

As a prime example of how labour laws do not necessarily gurantee any protection, look at Ontario's two tiered minimum wage. There is one for the general min. wage, and a lower one by a few dollars for service industry workers who reicieve tips as part of their trade. Shameful. The rationale is that those who recieve tips will work harder to make up the difference. But what about the days no-one tips, or it's slow. You have folks taking the full brunt of Harris's stupid common sense (de)volution!

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: farnival ]


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Haligonian Red
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12100

posted 28 February 2006 09:07 AM      Profile for Haligonian Red   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Alberta's Centennial - 100 Years, 9,219 Workplace Deaths
AFL Adds Up Workplace Fatalities for International Day of Mourning
Apr 27, 2005

EDMONTON - On the eve of the 10th Annual International Day of Mourning (commemorated on April 28), the Alberta Federation of Labour is releasing new research that tallies the total number of workers killed since Alberta became a province. This year is also Alberta's 100th anniversary...

In 2004, 124 workers were killed on the job. This is the eighth straight year when more than 100 workers were killed. The fatality rate was 4.0 deaths per 100,000 population, which is higher than the rate was in the early 1990s.

"The scary thing," says Foster, "is that we are killing more workers today than we were 15 years ago. We are failing workers in this province."


Alberta's Centennial


From: Halifax | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Haligonian Red
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12100

posted 28 February 2006 09:08 AM      Profile for Haligonian Red   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's a worker killed every three days.

Anecdotally, I can tell you I saw more health & safety violations on the construction of the Agrium Building in Calgary in one day than I saw in a year working at Saint John Shipbuilding.

I'll let you guess which place was unionized.

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Haligonian Red ]

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Haligonian Red ]


From: Halifax | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 28 February 2006 11:42 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
By the way SEIU Canada is hiring union organizers...that's a good sign. You might notice the rotating ad at the top of the page

Any babblers out there need a job? I know there have been a few threads about how to get a job working for a union over the past year.


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