babble: "Rand formula" under attack

FAQ | Forum Home

»	babble » walking the talk » labour and consumption » "Rand formula" under attack

Email this thread to someone!

Author

Topic: "Rand formula" under attack

josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 11 August 2004 10:15 AM

The Rand formula, or what we in the U.S. refer to as the "agency shop," requires that all employees in a bargaining unit pay union dues, whether or not they are union members, on the theory that all employees in the bargaining unit benefit from the raises negotiated by the union. Quebec's Liberals appear willing to join a movement to turn Canadian labour law into a northern version of many southern U.S. states' "right to work" laws, which ban requiring non-union members to pay dues:

quote:

All of which may explain why Quebec's Young Liberals, at a weekend conference in Trois Rivieres, voted to abolish the Rand Formula, which dates back to 1946 and forms the basis of Canadian trade unionism.
This regressive, libertarian vote, which will give heart to big business lobby groups, like the Fraser Institute, and anti-union commentators, like those who rule the National Post, and pollute open-line radio, was passed by a strong majority of young Liberal delegates attending the meeting.
Whatever the motive, the vote should sound alarm bells throughout the entire Canadian labour movement. In fact, everyone who cares about fairness in the Canadian workplace should be concerned.
Charest was smart enough to refrain from instantly embracing the motion. Headlines quoted him as saying the motion does not represent government policy. But that doesn't mean he is not in favour of it. In fact, Charest indicated that the proposal will now go forward to the Quebec Liberal congress in November, where it will be considered by the full party.
Thus, the stage has been quietly set for the ruling party, in Canada's second largest province, to seriously debate the abolition of what amounts to the heart and soul of the labour movement in Canada.

http://www.nupge.ca/news_2004/n10au04a.htm

From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 11 August 2004 11:39 AM

I'd like to see Charest try it. If he's forgotten Quebec has the most militant labour union movement in the country, he's an even bigger dolt than we've suspected all these years.

As for this "regressive, libertarian vote," I can understand NUPGE being concerned. But not only is it a mere Young Liberal resolution, even if it somehow became actual party policy (which I seriously doubt), it would most probably be one of those policies the actual party (i.e., the cabinet and caucus) proceeds to ignore. Every ruling party has them.

From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 11 August 2004 11:47 AM

Charest slapped them down, anyway. No way he would ever touch such a thing.

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

beibhnn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3178

posted 11 August 2004 03:34 PM

Maybe Charest wouldn't but there's a couple of Supreme Court judges itching to get another kick at the union security clause can. And with some progressives having been booted off/stepped down from the bench, the Rand formula could be a historical fact after the next legal challenge.

From: in exile | Registered: Oct 2002 | IP: Logged

'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 11 August 2004 03:48 PM

You interest me strangely. Who's been "booted" off the Supreme Court?

Also, I find it hard to see how this could get to the Supreme Court unless some government tried to change the law, resulting in a court challenge.

From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

beibhnn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3178

posted 11 August 2004 04:09 PM

L'Heureux Dube left - mandatory retirement - and I still miss her relative wisdom on Charter issues.

The Rand formula was peripherally under some scrutiny several years ago in the Advance Coring and Cutting decision when the closed shop provision in Quebec's Construction Act was challenged. The Court offered up some of the most confused reasons possible with four separate decisions, but in the end the closed shop provision was narrowly upheld. Note though that the most cohesive group decision argued the provision could not withstand Charter scrutiny. As for whether the decision would be the same today with the current make up of the SCC, that's anyone's guess.

It wouldn't take a change in the labour laws for another court case to make it to the SCC, but rather just a well timed challenge to the current provisions that allow for union security clauses in collective agreements. And if Chief Justice McLachlin is writing the majority decision, union security clauses like the Rand Formula may become a historical fact.

From: in exile | Registered: Oct 2002 | IP: Logged

'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 11 August 2004 04:19 PM

Oh, OK. I understood you to be saying someone had somehow been removed from the court, for a reason other than just reaching retirement age.

As for the rest, obviously you're better-informed than I. But I'd understood "closed shop" (employer hires from union hiring hall) to be different from "union shop" (employee joins union as condition of being hired), and both to be different from "Rand formula" shop. Am I misinformed?

[ 11 August 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]

From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 11 August 2004 04:26 PM

As I understand it, a closed shop means that only union members are hired. An open shop does not have that requirement, but requiring employees to join a union at some point after they are hired is not precluded. In an agency shop, which appears to be the Rand formula, union membership is not required in either instance, but union dues are deducted from the non-union employees' paychecks.

From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

beibhnn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3178

posted 11 August 2004 04:49 PM

You're both right. But in my pessimistic view of the world, whittling away at the union security clause that protects a closed shop could also have similar consequences for an agency shop operating under the Rand formula. I don't think young Liberals are the only ones anxious to erode union rights in this country and I don't think legislative changes to existing labour laws are the only ways that those rights are slipping away.

Of course, it would be nice if I was wrong. And as I am often told, I often am.

From: in exile | Registered: Oct 2002 | IP: Logged

'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 11 August 2004 04:52 PM

Likewise. It's just that I usually advise people not to panic until absolutely necessary. Of course, were I involved in the union movement, I might have good reason to think that time is approaching fast.

From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 11 August 2004 09:48 PM

It is a way though for the Quebec Liberal Party to float a "trial balloon" just to see what the reaction is.

And if there is a loud noisy reaction Charest can simply see "ah gee its just those uppitty kids".

Mind you I have doubt at all that a Jim Flaherty-led Tory government in Ontario would definitely go after the Rand formula.

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

All times are Pacific Time

Hop To: