I have no idea if this could work or not, i'm no lawyer (in fact the farther away from the law the better)

[ 02 August 2004: Message edited by: Evil i ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil i:
Maybe a part time worker could sue the union, because the union did not deliver the services the part-time worker is paying for.

---

A union is a democratic organization...not The Shopping Channel. Nice try.

It is much more common for members who feel their interests are not properly represented by their union to pursue a Duty of Fair Representation complaint before the labour relations board. Most provincial labour codes (except I think N.B.) have DFR provisions outlining what is involved in the duty to fairly represent. In some provinces, members are restricted to complaining about representation under the governing collective agreement; in other provinces the legislation obliges the union to provide representation that is in good faith, not arbitrary nor discriminatory during bargaining as well.

quote:

---

A union is a democratic organization...not The Shopping Channel. Nice try.

---

Hey.. never said I was a lawyer, If I was I'd have a much nicer car

Maybe the union has to give those part-time workers a reduction in union dues, equivalent to the union benifits they receive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by beibhnn:
It is much more common for members who feel their interests are not properly represented by their union to pursue a Duty of Fair Representation complaint before the labour relations board.

---

I was involved in one such complaint. The Labour Board forced the union to represent a member at Arbitration ...and we lost anyway. The hearing and the process cost us thousands of dollars in legal fees...and that was without having a lawyer present at the hearing. It was an idiotic waste of time...other than improving my own legal skills at the Labour Board.

The grievor turned down a cash offer from the other side, relayed through me, before the Arbitrator came down with his final decision. It was 2 weeks before Christmas. Poor bastard. He was a bull-headed idiot to the end. But the board forced us to represent him at the hearing, based on some procedural technicalities, when we knew we were dead in the water.

Mind you, having noted all that, I'm all in favour of improved union democracy...provided it is not a ruse to bleed the union dry...

I've also often thought that if unions like the idea of seniority (which I don't), that they should make union dues progressive based on seniority, too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Yeah, and then they won't get dues taken off their paycheque when the union doesn't represent them anyhow.

I've also often thought that if unions like the idea of seniority (which I don't), that they should make union dues progressive based on seniority, too.

So basically, if I'm the last person in, and the union makes sure that I'll be the first to go when there are layoffs, then I shouldn't have to pay anywhere near the same union dues as the guy who has the most seniority.

---

Well in theory, the employee must have merit if the management has kept them on staff for a long time. This works in some workplaces, but is a load of crap in others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NDP Newbie:
Often times, part time employees who are members of unions do not get a lot the benefits for which their unions fight.

What can be done to earn the support of these workers during a dispute over benefits that don't even affect them that may force them to strike?

---

It must be a union with a narrow outlook. It is in the interests of the full-time workers that the part-timers have almost equal benefits.

Otherwise the employer will convert as many jobs as possible to part-time to save money. If the union doesn't realize this already, maybe you should try to tell them.

Another problem with part-timers and unions is that benefits of a strike are often seen over the long term. So part-time employees who traditionally have less of a committment to stay with a particular employer for the long haul, don't see equivalent benefits for their sacrifice.

quote:

---

From what I have seen, a part-time worker is better off in a non-union setting. At least then s/he has access to the common law courts; something that is for AIAP barred in a collective agreement workplace.

---

I firmly disagree. I think most workers benefit from union representation, regardless of whether they are part time or full time employees. I admit that there are some collective agreements that are badly structured in terms of the benefits offered, but for the most part a collective agreement ensures greater job security, better access to benefits, and increased assurances of health and safety provisions being maintained to a high standard.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil i:

Maybe the union has to give those part-time workers a reduction in union dues, equivalent to the union benifits they receive.

---

Sigh... that would be nice. I've been a due-paying auxillery worker with the BCGEU for a total of a couple of years now (through several Co-op workterms).

Despite working full-time and paying Union dues, I don't get:

• Any sick days
• Any benefits
• The ability to schedule in flex time
  

Etc., etc. -- I also pay into EI despite the fact I'll never qualify due to being a student (having the ability to encur huge amounts of debt appartently de-qualifies you from receiving it I guess).

That all said, we (Co-op students) don't usually complain because that even at the VERY bottom of the government pay scale, we're not making bad coin compared with other 'student' jobs...this at least is something that WAS gained through negiotation (of course, those wages have been stagent for years now...).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
It's not so much that unions like the idea of seniority, although to some extent they do. But mostly, they defend it because the only obvious alternative is "merit"--as defined/perceived by managers. Which from the union point of view basically means favouritism and intimidation of active union members. They simply don't trust managerial assessments of merit. If seniority is successfully defended as the major criterion in hiring and layoffs, it means that people who stand up for their rights can't be made the next to be laid off. Only because they lack "merit" of course.

---

In the Canadian Federal Government, lay-off is in reverse order of merit. Seniority comes into play only if there is a tie in the merit ratings.

quote:

---

Originally posted by beibhnn:

As for the remedies offered by the courts, they are costly, lengthy and often financially out of reach for a part time employee with a wrongful or constructive dismissal case.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by that Beib. A Small Claims Court action normally gets to trial within 6 months. $10,000. monetary jurisdicion limit, which is considerably less than most pshort-term and/or part-timer will get anyway. And when most big corps realize that they are going to have to involve their "$350.00/hr." lawyer to defend it, plus send top level execs to be cross examined as witnesses, they settle on pretty generous terms. And, most Duputy -Judges of the Small Claims Court, at least in my experience, tend to favour "the little guy".

Plus, you don't have some union bigwig making a deal with the company; ie. "O.K., we back off this one; but you give a consent on that other case where the guy's got 25 years seniority. Yeah, I know you got hime "dead to rights" on tape stealing that 20 grand, but we've gotta maintain our credibility with the membership. That's good for us; good for you .....".

When most people who called me were advised what the maximum potential claim they might have was (usually a few weeks salary after pretty abusive treatment that led to their dismissal), most abandonned the process. Those who stuck it out and filed a claim were mostly on their own as they could not afford legal advice beyond a consultation and no matter what people say, courts are difficult places to navigate for lay people. Plus in many jurisdictions, the filing and service fees are prohibitive (for ex. in Alberta they were just raised from $25 to $100-$200.) And while the employer did not always hire a top lawyer, they usually did hire someone to at least defend the action and try to scare the plaintiff into dropping it. And many did.

In the practice where I articled, I must been involved with dozens of consultations that ended with a demand letter. But that's mostly because that's all clients could afford.

I have two thoughts I'd like to throw out there.

The first is that I agree many union contracts seem to favor full-time workers more than part-time workers. However, one must keep in mind that those contracts are negotiated by a democratically elected committee and approved by a democratic vote of the members.

In my experience, full-time workers tend to participate disproportionately more in their union. They show up for more meetings, they volunteer to serve on more committees, etc. There is a good reason for this. They often have more invested in the job because it it is their full-time gig. So they have a greater incentive to try and get the most out of it, and that includes getting the most out of their union.

In a democracy, the decisions are made by the people who show up to vote. If that's mostly full-timers, why wouldn't you expect that they would vote in favor of things that serve their interests, and be more indifferent to things that mostly help the part-timers who aren't at the meeting? So when the contract gets negotiated, the negotiating committee is going to push hardest for benefits that help full-timers, and make concessions on those issues that mainly affect part-timers. Why? Because they want to bring something back to the union meeting that's going to get ratified.

If you are a part-time worker who feels that your union isn't doing anything for you, there is nothing preventing you from showing up at your union meetings and complaining, or even running for a union office and trying to change things. You may not get elected, of course. But the biggest barrier you'll face is likely the disinterest or disengagement of your part-time colleagues who should be supporting you, but didn't make the meeting; rather than "the union" holding you down.

My second point has to do with seniority. It may seem unfair when you don't have a lot of it. But the fact is, if you stick with the job someday you will get your turn, too. I don't think its wrong for union rules to allow someone who's devoted 18 years to a job some more favorable perks than someone who's been there for 18 months.

"Merit" is often a codeword for management favoritism, or even ostensibly illegal discrimination (although I do agree that the civil service, which uses the term to describe a highly formal, bureaucratic and technical evaluative process, may be an exception). You don't have to suck up to the boss in order to get seniority. You don't have to change your skin colour or gender if you're boss is a bigot. You just have to show up and do your job. If you do that, the employer can't fire you without "just cause" and the union will go to bat for you on that no matter how recently you started working (once you've passed a "probationary" period). If you stay with the job, eventually all the old farts will retire, and then you'll be the old fart with seniority. The newbs may resent you, but I believe you will have earned whatever privileges you get.

[ 03 August 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

In the Canadian Federal Government, lay-off is in reverse order of merit. Seniority comes into play only if there is a tie in the merit ratings.

Merit is the only consideration in hiring and promotion, unless statutory employment equity needs are determined by management to be applicable to the position in question.

---

Yes because that's a statutory requirement under the federal Public Service Employment Act. Because its the law, its impossible for federal public service unions to negotiate seniority clauses much as they would like to.