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   » Interest arbitration better than strikes for public sector workers?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Interest arbitration better than strikes for public sector workers?
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 13 March 2007 02:39 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
B.C. Ferries workers have surrendered their formal right to strike, but that could actually work in their favour over the long haul, says a University of Victoria labour law expert.

Indeed, professor Ken Thornicroft suggests the change, contained in a ruling released last week by arbitrator Vince Ready, is something that other unions representing similarly "essential" workers should consider.

quote:
"Are you really giving up the right to strike?" Thornicroft asked in an interview yesterday, pointing out that the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers' Union workers never had an effective right to strike because the provincial government would quickly legislate them back to work, citing them as an essential service. ...

The labour expert said empirical evidence suggests that public sector unions -- he considers ferry workers to fall into this category despite the company being privatized -- do better long term under what is known as "conventional interest arbitration." ...

Details of the new agreement were contained in Ready's ruling, which stems from the union and B.C. Ferries agreeing to binding arbitration following a strike in December 2003.

According to the ruling, the union would not be able to legally strike at the end of the new deal, which runs until 2012. Instead, the ruling orders the union and company to go through a formal negotiation pattern to determine their next contract, a process that would conclude, if necessary, with binding arbitration.

Labour insiders said Ready's ruling calling for seemingly perpetual binding arbitration could be broken at the end of the current deal, but only if the arbitrator conceded to that move. ...

Ready's report credited union president Jackie Miller for suggesting the move to binding arbitration, calling it "a new and fresh approach to collective bargaining."

The suggestion was modelled after a binding arbitration system used by Washington State Ferries and its unions, the report said.

The ruling establishes a permanent three-member bargaining dispute resolution panel, which includes Ready. It also calls for the union and company to jointly conduct a salary and benefits survey "of relevant comparable employers" to use in working toward a new collective agreement.

In addition, it calls for the sides to exchange proposals not less than three months before the expiry of the current deal. In the case of a stalemate, it calls for mediation, followed by binding arbitration.

"The empirical evidence seems to suggest that arbitrators don't really want to piss either side off, so there's a tendency to find some sort of middle ground," Thornicroft said.

Ready issued his arbitration ruling last week, giving most ferry workers an 11 per cent wage increase between now and 2010, with "wage re-openers" in the final two years of the deal. Employees with the company since 2003 will also receive a lump-sum $1,000 payment. Senior and junior officers also received "special classification adjustments" of five and three per cent, respectively, in 2005, 2006 and 2007.


It might be counterintuitive, but I agree, this might be better for unions than for employers, and where the work is regarded by government as being essential. The unions don't get much out of going on strike, except to make a point when a matter of principle is at stake.

Which is why I'm surprised that the employers are getting behind the idea of "conventional interest arbitration." At first glance, the idea of avoiding strikes altogether may be appealing to them, but it appears only to be a superficial advantage, and possibly to their detriment.

Not to mention that Vince Ready once again has crafted a sweet deal by appointing himself as a member of the permanent dispute-resolution panel. He certainly knows how to generate ongoing employment for himself!

[ 14 March 2007: Message edited by: obscurantist ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 March 2007 03:34 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Need more information here.

If their agreement runs until 2012, everything is on the table after that - including the right to strike. You can't bargain that away, nor can an arbitrator take it away through an award, beyond the term of one collective agreement.

This has gotta be some kind of "consent" award, where both parties agreed. If not, I can't see how it can have legal binding effect beyond the 2012 expiry. Only the legislators could do that.

Copy of the award, anyone? As well as Vince Ready's terms of reference? Was he doing arbitration or mediation-arbitration? Was it a "consent award"?

As for the issue itself, giving up the right to strike is idiotic under all circumstances. You don't have to all-out strike in the face of certain back-to-work legislation. You can do overtime bans, work-to-rules, etc., finding ways to creative hurt the employer while doing minimum damage to the public, thus staving off legislation for a while. Cf. the recent UTU strike on CN, where I believe they could have been even more creative had they not been facing the combined onslaught of CN and their U.S. union HQ.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 14 March 2007 12:18 AM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unfortunately, that's all the information I have so far, and the only other things I could find online were a couple of other news stories repeating the same information.

I agree, it would be very shortsighted for a union to voluntarily relinquish its right to strike.

And as a relative who works in labour negotiation put it, interest arbitration has what he calls a "narcotizing" effect on collective bargaining. It removes the incentive for either side to negotiate, when they know that a third party will ultimately make a decision for them (that's assuming this is a pure arbitration as opposed to med-arb). That's similar to the situation that already exists when a union and employer both know that the government will legislate a union back to work (although, as you say, a union may have other options short of an all-out strike).

So I guess the reason I posted the story in the first place is that I was a bit confused about what each side finds attractive about this arrangement. Are there ulterior motives on one or both sides? Or are they both just being stupid? I wouldn't want to rule out either possibility....


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 14 March 2007 11:39 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, this story gets stranger. The following is just an editorial, but seems to be based on some news story I can't find:

quote:
Major elements of a nine-year contract imposed last week by mediator Vince Ready on the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers Union are unacceptable, according to union president Jackie Miller.

In an interview with The Province editorial board yesterday, Miller categorically denied the union had voluntarily surrendered its right to strike.


I still will wait to see the award. Even if it was a rather bizarre 9-year deal (2004-2012), I don't see how it can legally bind the parties to arbitration for the following round.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 15 March 2007 01:20 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
BC FERRY & MARINE WORKERS' UNION
March 13, 2007
Bulletin 06

Last week Vince Ready issued his Binding Award arising out of the December 2003 labour dispute between the BCFMWU and the new management of BC Ferry Service Inc. The document attempts to bring about a collective agreement with an extension of the contract term to 2012, corresponding with the end of the next performance term of the Coastal Ferry Services Contract and with the Company's September 9, 2006 submission.

The Union attempted last September to get the Employer back to the table and properly bargain. High on the Company's agenda was gaining free license to exclude and create more management positions; and the homesteading of licensed personnel. They also wanted the term extended and were offering minimal compensation in spite of the current marketplace realities associated with industry-wide skills shortages and BC Ferries' inability to recruit and retain qualified personnel. The Union's three executives unanimously agreed to reject the Company's proposals and the parties returned to Mr. Ready for a final and binding Award.

The Arbitrator accepted initial submissions from the parties and met with members of the Standing Bargaining Committee and the Company representatives at which time he claimed jurisdiction over all issues in the Collective Agreement and those that arose out of the September 2006 negotiations, including the repatriation of Deas Pacific Marine. The parties had previously given the Arbitrator jurisdiction over our entire collective agreement in December 2003.

During the discussions Mr. Ready gave the parties the clear indication he would be including the Employer’s Memorandum in his Final Award and the parties were given a final opportunity to provide written submissions on items to which they had not had an opportunity to speak. The Union was asked to send to Mr. Ready an addendum of issues arising from the Queen of the North and later a synopsis of the Marine Employees' Commission model, which is a model that had been included, in part, in the discussions dating back to the collective bargaining in 2003. Throughout the last four years this model has been raised and discussed at the Executive table, amongst the Standing Bargaining Committee and with the Employer and Mr. Ready. When it became apparent that the Arbitrator was going in the direction of further extending the contract, we asked him to take a look at the MEC model as a way of mitigating the negative impacts of a longer term. The MEC model created for the Washington State ferry system provides for perpetual two year reviews of market salary and benefits compensation and an ongoing dispute resolution mechanism for all issues arising between the parties. The State Assembly wrote legislation that gave guaranteed successorship to the unions in their ferry system and the right to strike or lockout was removed. The Unions have been satisfied with the system for over 25 years while the Employer has tried to change the legislation unsuccessfully. In the paper to Mr. Ready outlining what the model was we expressly left out the removal of the right to strike piece of the legislation. The paper was intended as a suggestion to protect the terms of compensation and benefits increases over the course of a long agreement, should Mr. Ready take that route.

Mr. Ready's Final Award has gone farther than the parties had contemplated in a number of areas. We have no way of knowing what part the government may have played in this Award. The Arbitrator adjusted only slightly the Employer's Memorandum of Agreement that was the result of the failed September negotiations. As well he added a particularly onerous part to the homesteading language, which now includes all classifications in the bargaining unit. He has provided the Employer with the license to break our seniority provisions with language the Union had never seen or heard prior to the Award. Mr. Ready has also taken a workable, fair, and progressive model for collective bargaining and watered it down to something we are still unsure of because it bears no resemblance to the Marine Employees' Commission model or traditional collective bargaining. One thing Mr. Ready has made abundantly clear to the President is that at no time did he say that the Union had agreed to the removal of the right to strike nor does he mention it anywhere in his Award. The Union has commenced a legal review of the Award and will discuss the results of the Award and all issues arising from it at the upcoming Provincial Executive meeting.

With the Award finally issued, a final document will be vetted and prepared for the printers. We will be recommending a ring binder as we believe more is yet to be changed. We will require the return of Table A and the position and compensation appendices. There will be new articles for Deas Pacific Marine and part-time regular language. With Vince Ready and his arbitration panel as our new dispute resolution process, the entire grievance process article will have to be rewritten. The agreement will now be more complex and cumbersome to administer particularly with the labour relations climate as it continues at BC Ferries.

It has been a long and arduous road to come to this point. For we who walked the picket line; shut down the fleet in protest in December of 2003 and are still employed by BC Ferries: we survived and still thrive, once more together and complete as a bargaining unit. We have managed to retain most of our historical terms and conditions of employment. The fight will now be to complete our collective agreement to return protections stripped away by Mr. Ready. For now, the government's agenda against us has been stopped and the Ferry Workers’ continue. As Vaughn Palmer once wrote of the government's failed attempt to destroy us--we were the ones that got away.
cope 15

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"PLEASE POST"
Phone: (250) 716.3452 Fax: (250) 716.3455
Toll Free: 1-800-663-7009 Hotline: 1-888-445-8811
Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.bcfmwu.com
Forum http://www.BCFMWU-FORUM.com

Print Page


The Union's view of Ready's handiwork.

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 17 March 2007 10:52 AM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, this is, for lack of a better term, fucked up!

The Obsurantist's point that unions generally do well in banding arbitrations is certainly true. But this isn't one of those situations.

I suspect BC Liar collusion somewhere here, since there is no reason for Ready to be imposing conditions not even tentatively raised in the process. It's not a normal practice for Vince Ready.

Yet here it is. The MEC plan for the Washington State ferry system was recommended and supported by the unions working on the ferry system, as well as initially supported by the bosses.

But this move doesn't follow that process at all. I was an active supporter of that fight back in 2003. It was the first fight where a group of workers pulled all the stops and stood up to the Liar regime's efforts to smash their working conditions and sell off the ferry system and succeeded.

It's been a grueling and uncertain situation for them in the three-plus years since. And after coming up with a pretty good idea that seems to have worked fairly well with the ferries just across the border, they end up having it turned against them.

I guess their next recourse is legal action in the courts, which could take another three years.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 March 2007 12:19 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:

The Obsurantist's point that unions generally do well in banding arbitrations is certainly true.

Obscurantist can speak for himself, but I didn't read that into his remarks. I thought he was speaking about very rare and narrow situations where the workers have no effective right to strike because they are "essentialed" to death. Even then, I didn't hear him say that unions had got good results in those situations, just that it might be preferable to (un)free collective bargaining.

In my opinion, it makes no sense to give up the right to strike even when it appears to be so limited as to be virtually useless. The threat of strike or limited strike - the fear of the unknown on the employer's part - is always a powerful weapon.

Having read the union's rather "political" bulletin, I still have no better understanding as to whether they have somehow abandoned the strike tool beyond the 2012 expiry, although I do see that my old friend Vince seems to have established himself as full-time sole arbitrator of all "disputes". That's why they call him "Ready" I guess!


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
RANGER
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7667

posted 17 March 2007 03:09 PM      Profile for RANGER     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for directing me to this thread unionist,as I said in the other thread, "don't do it"! unless there are some iron clad guarantees, your friend Vince has lost credibility here, he was brought in to settle the dispute at hand in 2003, not create a nine freaking year contract! (totally unprecedented in B.C.), certainly not mandated to change future bargaining structure, and has the balls to say it's both parties fault that relations are poor? well if he get's poked in the eye with a sharp pencil and says "thank you" that's his problem! the union would not allow a truck to be driven through the previous agreement and that's what made them the bad guy by the likes of David Hahn and Grahem Bruce, sounds like he took a converation and ran like hell with it and don't think for one moment it didn't have Gordon Campbell's blessing.
From: sunshine coast | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 March 2007 04:47 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Vince Ready is a far better mediator than arbitrator (IMO - don't hit me, Vince!). But when a union voluntarily embarks on a process like this, they have no one ultimately to blame for the outcome except themselves, no matter how few their alternatives appeared to be at the time.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 19 March 2007 03:29 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Vince Ready is a far better mediator than arbitrator (IMO - don't hit me, Vince!). But when a union voluntarily embarks on a process like this, they have no one ultimately to blame for the outcome except themselves, no matter how few their alternatives appeared to be at the time.
Let's see do you consider coercion of the state as relevant. When the union accepted the binding arbitration option they were in a situation where the government had ordered that its legal strike had to end, the government appointed Ready under the terms of an old statute, the legislation was sitting the next day and it was expected that the governmet was going to legislate two collective agreements as law. They did legislate a collective agreement in the forest industry the next day but not at ferries. The last proposal of the ferry corp was worse than the shit that Prince Vince ordered and after having seen Gordo's work I am convinced that the l;ast offer was going to ber attached to an Act that simply said here is your collective agreement don't let it choke you on its way down your throat.

The idea that anyone accepted any of this right wing agenda willingly is not correct. Looking back it is always easy to say this is the way it should have gone but when faced with two doors one that you know has the employers last offer behind it and another option that is uncertain most people would take the uncertain rather than the one they know will screw them immediately and royally.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | 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