"right To Work" Laws In Canada

[Hjalmar]

A 2001 study of 38 unionized auto parts plants in Ontario and Quebec found that companies offering their workers gain-sharing plans not only enjoyed higher productivity than those that didn't, they also enjoyed better relations with their employees.... Gain-sharing plans are group pay-for-performance arrangements under which employees work to beat past performance goals over short-term periods. Production gains are given a dollar value and is shared with workers in the form of bonuses. The article

states that companies like the plan because gain-sharing

bonuses must be constantly re-earned and employees don't view them as entitlements.

I have been advocating pay plans tied to productivity since day one.

[Hjalmar]

Polls show support for Right to Work laws

For the past two Labor Days a radio station in Pittsburgh (KQV) has conducted a poll asking whether or not the caller supports the Right to Work. This year, 77% of respondents said yes, and last year 84% supported a Right to Work law. Although this tracks with the support of Right to Work across the state, it is a remarkable percentage for Pittsburgh, long considered to be union-controlled.

The results of a number of current polls taken in the Commonwealth confirm the overwhelming support for Right to Work laws and opposition to forced union dues laws shown in national polls over the past two decades.

[August1991]

I haven't followed this thread at all but the news in Quebec concerns a union vote at a Wal-Mart in Jonquière. The results will be known in a few days. If successful, it would be the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America. (The World?)

Management threatened that it would shut the store if the vote is pro-union.

Here`s my question: Should employees of a Wal-Mart have the right to unionize and enforce all employees to belong to the union?

[Hjalmar]

August

Here`s my question: Should employees of a Wal-Mart have the right to unionize and enforce all employees to belong to the union?

It should be our constitutional right to belong, or not belong to a union. . No employee should be forced to join a union. I don't care if they have 55% or even 90% vote for, the ones that don't want a union should not be forced to join.

I think I'm safe in saying that if this thing goes ahead all those employees will find themselves out of a job... watch for it. WalMart is not going to allow a precedent such as this take place. To the best of my recollection there has been one other attempt at unionizing a WalMart [in Canada] which was successful and the store promptly shut down.

WalMart in Canada is the best thing that happened for thousands of non-union workers who can now afford to buy at realistic prices. The same applies to seniors and low income people. I think the time has come for people here in Canada to start speaking out against these selfish and greedy unions.

[jccc]

Here`s my question: Should employees of a Wal-Mart have the right to unionize and enforce all employees to belong to the union?

Yes & no.

They should have the right to unionize if the employer decides thats OK. They definitely should not be allowed to force other employees into the union. That should be the choice of the person themselves. We are supposed to be a free country, where one can make their own decisions.

One policy I like in the UK is civil servants are NOT allowed to strike. That is something we should be adopting. I cringe when I see striking OPSEU or CUPE employees with the picket signs in hand, holding us hostage or using school kids as pawns. I think unions are the dictatorships of the business world......get rid of them!!!!!

Jim

[o.i.c]

I'm joining this a bit late I suppose. Firstly, I'm neither pro-union nor anti-union, I'm just curious to see where this discussion goes.

Secondly, where are you getting your 'facts'? I see no sources, so for now I assume them to be purely opinion. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt so that I can say this:

[1] They have effectively killed the strong work ethic that was so prevelant amongst the people that built this country.

You say labour union...I say television - haha sorry. Anyhow, I don't see your logic in blaming labour unions for what sounds to be outright laziness, although, I fail to see the logic in having a strong work ethic for one's country. That would be a classic example of confusing a means and an ends. Do things such as countries/gov'ts/institutions exist for us to serve them, or them to serve us. Obviously it is more complicated than one or the other, but right now, it seems society is willing to sacrifice for things like the economy, country, etc. Maybe another example? - dying for money.

[2] They have created perpetual inflation with their ongoing annual wage increase demands.

Hm, well I think of inflation as circular. Should labour unions back down trying to create better living for workers, or employers back down on profits? It seems like the same situation as explained in [1].

[3] They have created a culture of workers that want to continually do less while at the same time demanding higher wages.

[4] They are directly responsible for our productivity in Canada dropping by almost 25% below that of the USA.

[3], [4] Same as [1].

[5] They are directly responsible for creating massive

inconveniences to all Canadians with their strikes. "our way or the highway". We read news about this almost daily.

I suppose this is a "less of 2 evils" situation - support the inconviences faced by Canadians willing to strike, or those of Canadians affected by Canadian strikers?

[6] They are directly responsible for thousands of jobs that are never created because of the known threat of possible unionization if the venture were labour intensive.

Hm, well lets assume your logic is correct for a second. I think you may agree with me in saying labour unions provide job security (even if the employee is pathetic as you suggest). Let us say a humble 1000 non-unionized jobs are created, what good is that if say 1 month/year later they are all laid-off?

[7] They are directly responsible for Canada having become a "high tax" jurisdiction because of their outlandish wage demands in the public sector which accounts for over 70% of government expenditures.

Same as [1].

[8] They have over the years almost succeeded in making their jobs so secure that many union workers do virtually nothing knowing full well that it is almost impossible to fire them.

See [6]

[9] They have created mass inefficiencies in the workplace with their "that's not my job" attitude.

Externalization is not only found within employee circles. It is a major problem in society, and we only have ourselves to blame - laziness.

[10] They have created a workplace that has become more of a war zone with their belligerent attitude towards their employer ... the employer has in effect become the enemy.

I'm sure this is the case in certain places of work, however, are you sure it is the result of labour unions?

[11] They are directly responsible for non-union workers

becoming poorer and poorer because of unavoidable price

increases for almost all products required for basic survival.

[11] See [2].

[12] They treat non-union workers as second-class citizens and their own in a class by themselves.

As does almost every institution at some point - to group together and pressure enemies. I'm not suggesting this is a good thing though.

[13] They insist on running their own show even though they haven't invested a penny. The "boss" in many cases has become virtually redundant due to bullying tactics of shop stewards.

Why not get rid of the 'boss' if you believe your own argument of the 'boss' being redundant?

[Hjalmar]

o.i.c.

I suppose this is a "less of 2 evils" situation - support the inconviences faced by Canadians willing to strike, or those of Canadians affected by Canadian strikers?

Why should people put up with all the inconveniences created by strikes by union workers? Are you saying it's ok for perhaps 5000 workers to create these ongoing inconveniences just to satisfy their own greed and selfishness even though it might be inconveniencing 5 million people? We as a country have matured and it's time to start using more mature tools.

Let us say a humble 1000 non-unionized jobs are created, what good is that if say 1 month/year later they are all laid-off?

Union or non-union, they will be laid off if the company is losing money.. The probability of operating at a loss increases tenfold if the company is unionized.

I'm sure this is the case in certain places of work, however, are you sure it is the result of labour unions?

Not much question about that. The atmosphere between employee and employer is far more harmonious in non-union workplaces. You have a very unhealthy relationship between employee/employer in most union workplaces. Are you able to answer why that is?

Why not get rid of the 'boss' if you believe your own argument of the 'boss' being redundant?

Good idea... let the unions run the show. They're virtually doing that now.

[o.i.c]

You are free to believe in this utopian capitalist philosophy if you choose. You are also free to believe in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, Santa Claus, and the Great Pumpkin too.

A lie, repeated often enough, still does not make it the truth.

What you talk about is a global kind of trickle-down economics. That theory is a lie - it does not work. It never has worked. Its an agenda that was attempted by Ronald Reagan, Margarette Thatcher, Gordon Campbell, and now George Bush and it has failed each time. The theory is a self centred concept that says that by rewarding the wealthy with tax breaks (and lowering the spending power of 'classes' below them) the wealthy will automatically invest and create jobs for the masses.

Bullsh*t. They took their money and ran. They invested it offshore, out of the tax jurisdiction of the nation, and it was pulled out of the economy. The ret result each time was massive deficits and a ruined economy.

But those in the conservative camp refuse to accept blame for your own mistakes and attempt to blame the unions. Unions wouldn't exist if companies treated their workers with respect and dignity and paid a fair wage.

America has been outsourcing jobs at a painful rate now. These aren't the $30/h union jobs (although enough of them have been exported) these are the non-union jobs of the mid-west that hover around $12-14 (US$) per hour. Hardly the 'big money', but not bad either.

Tell me...who the hell benifits when you take the ability of a family to feed itself away?

The practice is wrong and immoral.

I find myself agreeing with a lot of this. Several previous posts are mislead in blaming labour unions. Instead they should point to corporate greed inherent to so many corporations out there. Although labour unions may battle for higher wages, etc. they seem to be doing so for the workers - the majority. Corporations act solely for the minority elitist community. Anyone else find it eerie that corporations are people under the U.S. constitution. All the so called freedoms and rights, but with nothing to lose.

As for outsourcing...the effects of legislation such as NAFTA seem to be bad news for the average U.S./Canadian worker. This allows corporations to legally pressure labour unions to moderate their efforts with threats to outsource jobs. Someone (my apologies for forgetting who exactly) has a strong argument stressing that 2/3 of the Canadian economy is driven by consumer spending. If the number is that high, it seems logical that if gov'ts want to help the economy, they should work to maintain high disposable income for consumers.

[RB]

Management threatened that it would shut the store if the vote is pro-union.

it is illegal under Labor Relations law to threaten closure or intimidate workers because they have decided to organise, it is illegal to threaten dismissal, or renegiotiate with workers..alter wages, or descrimate, or change terms of conditions of employment etc.

Here`s my question: Should employees of a Wal-Mart have the right to unionize and enforce all employees to belong to the union?

the law guarantees a right to join a union, when a workplace is unionise whether the non-management employee (such as a temporary worker or a contract worker) is a member of the union or not…they are represented by the union in conflicts

They should have the right to unionize if the employer decides thats OK 

the employer usually is not the one who decides the OK

under the labor act the employer is required by law to "...make every reasonable effort" to negotiate a contract with the union

[Michael Hardner]

Hjalmar:

Why should people put up with all the inconveniences created by strikes by union workers? Are you saying it's ok for perhaps 5000 workers to create these ongoing inconveniences just to satisfy their own greed and selfishness even though it might be inconveniencing 5 million people? We as a country have matured and it's time to start using more mature tools.

Why don't you call it "greed" when the company wants to make more money ? I asked you previously not to imbue your arguments with personal value statements but you seem to have ignored this plea.

Part of discussion is listening to the other person.

Not much question about that. The atmosphere between employee and employer is far more harmonious in non-union workplaces. You have a very unhealthy relationship between employee/employer in most union workplaces. Are you able to answer why that is?

One reason may be that workers unionize when they feel that they need protection against unfair employers. So it's not that surprising that relations in union shops would be worse.

Good idea... let the unions run the show. They're virtually doing that now.

I thought you said unions were on the wane.

[o.i.c]

A quick question Hjalmar. If you feel unionized workers have a better life, why not choose to join the union of those workers? You are, afterall, debating to provide a better life for yourself/family? and other non-unionized workers.

As for your 5000 vs. 5 million argument, you have yet to address my issue of who should back down - employee or employers? Strikes occur due to greed, yes I agree, but is it always the greed of the unionized workers? You don't think it is possible that they are not particularily greedy, but desire more for similar reasons that you yourself want more?

[o.i.c]

I asked you previously not to imbue your arguments with personal value statements but you seem to have ignored this plea.

Personal value statements are probably difficult to refrain from, but I suppose everyone should just acknowledge them when after use. I do share your passion for an objective solution, if one exists.

One reason may be that workers unionize when they feel that they need protection against unfair employers.  So it's not that surprising that relations in union shops would be worse.

Seems logical. You made what I was going to say stronger in that tension in unionized workplaces is probably a result of problems before the union demands change.

Good idea... let the unions run the show. They're virtually doing that now.

I'm not sure what to do with your frustration. I consider sarcasm to be a poor form of communication - illogical, unintelligent, and a hindrance. Generally I find it means regardless of the outcome in the discussion, no one will be the wiser; no change or progress occurs. A great example is if you have ever watched CPAC or better, visited parliament.

[Hjalmar]

o.i.c

A quick question Hjalmar. If you feel unionized workers have a better life, why not choose to join the union of those workers? You are, afterall, debating to provide a better life for yourself/family? and other non-unionized workers

We are having problems today with outsourcing of jobs because we are finding ourselves unable to compete in a global market. Considering that, which makes more sense - having non-union workers [75% of the workforce] unionize in order to catch up or having 25% of the workforce pull out of their union and come down to earth where they will be earning comparable wages to the rest of us? I can tell you right now that the latter would improve the living standards of the majority.

[Hjalmar]

Labor unions, like any monolithic process, are slow to respond to the reality of the markets.... We no longer need the union structure to achieve protections for the worker; and we no longer can rely on the union to provide trained capable workers for the market.

Instead, the union continues to bring to the labor market union members who have been brainwashed to believe that the best way to achieve job security is to do the least.... It's called "featherbedding." Historically, featherbedding was an effective way to force companies to hire more people than the jobs required.

By contrast, we have people in the armed forces who work for much less pay than union members; and who realize that the job is done when the job is done....not when the bell rings. These people learn the benefits of working together with their peers to achieve a goal; and doing what it takes to get the job done.... These people proudly serve our country and learn skills that translate to productivity in the free market when they leave the military.

What distinguishes the workers in these 2 groups? ..The words "selfishness and greed" seem to separate the 2 types of workers.... The public admires those in our military and respects them for the work they do under difficult circumstances.

By comparison, the public knows selfishness and greed when we see union workers constantly complaining and whining.

[Hjalmar]

Premium for Power

The strong work ethic, so ingrained in many people that came here and built this country, is being totally destroyed by the labor union movement - so much so that the very survival of the nation is at stake... This has to be turned around. "Right to work" laws is not a total solution but it is a start... We need to go much further than that in order to save our country from the ravages of the labor

union movement.

In addition to "right to work" laws I would add the following:

[1] Disallow the strike weapon altogether...it is far too onerous.

[2] Disallow union dues as a legitimate tax deduction. This is not a government program such as CPP. This is akin to allowing the deduction of your car and house payments and is ridiculous.

[3] Amend the income tax structure whereby union workers pay a higher rate than others. Why should some people have so much power that others do not have simply because they belong to a labor union? Shouldn't there be a price tag attached to this? Premium for power is what I would call it.

[Hjalmar]

o.i.c

As for your 5000 vs. 5 million argument, you have yet to address my issue of who should back down - employee or employers? Strikes occur due to greed, yes I agree, but is it always the greed of the unionized workers? You don't think it is possible that they are not particularily greedy, but desire more for similar reasons that you yourself want more?

The employee has total freedom to seek work elsewhere if dissatisfied with the wages.. A union employee is one that wants to be paid more than he's worth.

I agree with this quote: (You want more than you have;

Become more than you are! - Jim Rhone 1980)

[RB]

[1] Disallow the strike weapon altogether...it is far too onerous.

the statutes in all jurisdictions in Canada require that collective agreements contain clauses to:

1) forbid strikes

2) lockouts

when we look at striking activity – occur mostly in the area of education and health in the public sectors, which I can add, ditto, it not responsive to the labor market conditions as would private sector

furthermore, notice is given to union leaders, management and labor boards prior to striking – good grief you want to forbid people to organize

conventional wisdom says that in Canada we have many branch operations and multi-national companies and there are not much room to maneuver negotiations hence strikes e.g. auto.

i want to blame those companies that they do want to exploit local labor. for our good canadians an attempt to motivate higher wages – why strike should not be an option?, foreign companies wishing to maintain a public image in host countries will stay competitive – hmm what can i say nowadays “protocols” are in place to lessen distant relations and companies to be our sweethearts

but unions will continue to exist, people have vested interest here especially when there are shortages of jobs, and good lawyers around

[2] Disallow union dues as a legitimate tax deduction. This is not a government program such as CPP. This is akin to allowing the deduction of your car and house payments and is ridiculous.

i disagree, union dues, professional dues, etc all are memberships and related to current employment, the latter to perhaps keep a status recognized by law such as P.Eng and the offer is development to stay current with new possibilities, trends, laws, etc. just as the car expenses you claim related to employment, house is no claim well unless you meant using it for business

[3] amend the income tax structure whereby union workers pay a higher rate than others.

this is ridiculous, same as why don’t just we just tax people by occupation, tax on # of times they have sex per week, and job categories

[Hjalmar]

RB

this is ridiculous, same as why don’t just we just tax people by occupation, tax on # of times they have sex per week, and job categories

That's a good one. But who would monitor the number of times they have sex per week? Or would they rely on peoples honesty? Would you report that accurately? Just wondering!!!!

[RB]

Hjalmar

while you are adamant and getting rather anxious to rid unions, contrary to your believe Canadian employers accept unions as an integral part of the work environment, well some employers only tolerate unions and a small significant could fight to a bitter end.

to the latter it is clear that those some employers really have to rethink how to handle unions because the federal and 10 provinces have been given collective bargaining rights to workers

what is workable ... employers just have to come up with the right strategies to dissuade unionisation. McDonalds restaurant classic example failed to unionised in Orangeville, ON ... apparently they are "pro-employee" not "anti-union"

i have seen unionize environments also dissolved because of some smart move by management

well only just because you are wondering i give the burden of reporting activities to the males of this land, verification can be collated with # of screamers (technolgy can make this possible, maybe we find we all have unique voice) well just to make sure there is no inconsistency fellows - otherwise we will only have high performance reporting. but Hjalmar the way the government operates as soon as you get too familiar with some process it is shifted around and called another name so don't hold your breathe

[Hjalmar]

Has anyone noticed that union employees today are starting to feel embarassed about admitting or revealing that they belong to a union? What do you think?

[BigGunner]

Has anyone noticed that union employees today are starting to feel embarassed about admitting or revealing that they belong to a union? What do you think?

Us union workers are prouder than ever to be a part of a union. Because of our higher-than-average paycheques, we have the kind of spending power that allows independent small and medium businesses to thrive.

Our higher than average paycheques also pay a higher rate of tax which support the construction and maintenece of healthcare and education...its simple - cut our wages and you will cut the services that everyone rely on.

I take particular exception to the lies told by people like you. Union workers are just like anyone else...they pay rent or mortgage, feed their kids, drive cars, and try to have a vacation once in a while.

Your kind of hateful rhetoric is just that. Our constitution guarantees a right of free assembly, and that includes membership in a union.

If you had your way, unions would be illegal and 'members' would be arrested for being involved...as it used to be. How far back would you move the calander?

What other groups would you outlaw? Jews? Socialists? Left handed people?

Hitler imposed a kind of 'Jew tax" and then confiscated all of their hard earned possetions...this is not a path that we should even look at.

Your hero Geroge W. Bush has already started down that path by jailing thousands of Muslims, and has taken away Overtime from workers.

Union workers do not enjoy special rights over and above non-union workers. Most workers in a non-union shop are happy enough to leave things as they are, as long as the employer treats the workers with dignity and respect, and pay a decent wage. It is when the employer attempts to abuse the rights of the non-union worker that they are tempted to stand up for their rights and form a union to fight back...and this is the very right that you'd take away from oppressed workers.

That has nothing to do with right-wing economic thinking, its goddamn facism!

[jccc]

Has anyone noticed that union employees today are starting to feel embarassed about admitting or revealing that they belong to a union? What do you think?

They should be embarassed when they say things like

What other groups would you outlaw? Jews? Socialists? Left handed people?

And....

That has nothing to do with right-wing economic thinking, its goddamn facism!

Typical union BS.... trying to compare apples to oranges. How about picketers taking away the rights of a worker trying to cross the line ? or teachers taking away the kids rights to get an education & using them as poker chips in their "negotiations". Think you're on the losing end there BG.....glory days are over!!!!

Jim

[BigGunner]

Has anyone noticed that union employees today are starting to feel embarassed about admitting or revealing that they belong to a union? What do you think?

They should be embarassed when they say things like

What other groups would you outlaw? Jews? Socialists? Left handed people?

And....

That has nothing to do with right-wing economic thinking, its goddamn facism!

Typical union BS.... trying to compare apples to oranges. How about picketers taking away the rights of a worker trying to cross the line ? or teachers taking away the kids rights to get an education & using them as poker chips in their "negotiations". Think you're on the losing end there BG.....glory days are over!!!!

Jim

Unions, Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Catholics, Socialists, and intellectuals were all banned, arrested, and murdered in their turn by the Nazi's.

I see that you like teacher-bashing...nice that you hate an entire class of worker because of what they do...but it doesn't lend credibility to your argument.

The argument is about the right of a group of workers to democratically form a union to negotiate a collective agreement for all of its members, and the right to lawfully withold services until the employer negotiates in good faith. This is a right, and should always be a right.

Some union-haters in this forum think its a good idea to outlaw unions, or levy an extra tax on unionized workers. The problem is that unions, and the right to join one, are protected by the constitution of this country...and the average unionized worker already pays a higher level of taxes because of their higher than average income level.

I don't know about where you live, but in my province, certain public services are designated 'essential services'. Withdrawing services from such a designated job would likely result in heavy fines and/or jail time. This designation applies to the healthcare, education, and tranportation sectors (under provincial jurisdiction).

Your hero George W. Bush has gone many steps further though. He has banned overtime for most workers, and legislatively crushed the unions. If that wasn't enough, he offers tax breaks for corporations to outsource to foreign companies the already low wage, non-union jobs that you'd like to see here.

After giving hundreds of millions away in tax cuts to the wealthy, forcing wages down by the threat of exporting jobs, you think teachers are selfish? Give your head a shake. You are certainly not winning this argument.

[jccc]

I see that you like teacher-bashing...nice that you hate an entire class of worker because of what they do

When did I say I hate teachers?? I hate the fact that they are constantly looking for more & more & more when they already make a great wage & excellent benefits, but still want more & more & more......

The argument is about the right of a group of workers to democratically form a union to negotiate a collective agreement for all of its members, and the right to lawfully withold services until the employer negotiates in good faith. This is a right, and should always be a right.

NO!!!! THIS SHOULD NOT BE A RIGHT FOR CIVIL SERVANT WORKERS AT ANY LEVEL!!! THE RIGHT TO HOLD TAXPAYERS HOSTAGE FOR SERVICES WE PAY FOR IS ABSURD & JUST PLAIN WRONG!!!

Your hero George W. Bush has gone many steps further though.

Geo W Bush is not my hero, he is the farthest thing from it!! My personal political hero was Mike Harris, former premier of Ontario....the guy that make Ontario prosper like no one ever seen before & still is....for a while. Soon the Liberals are going to *$^# things up with their usual "throw money at the problem" stance they take when opposed!!

After giving hundreds of millions away in tax cuts to the wealthy, forcing wages down by the threat of exporting jobs, you think teachers are selfish? Give your head a shake. You are certainly not winning this argument.

I know teachers are selfish. Now pull your head out of yer @$$ & think for one second. If tax cuts are not given to large corporations, said corp will go do all their business elsewhere....leaving you & 1000s of others unemployed. It is a good idea to give large corps tax cuts. More tax $$$ are generated by collecting smaller amounts off of a large # of people (employees) than taking big $$ of off 1 corporation. When the corp save tax $$ they can expand & hire more workers, when they fork out more tax $$, they go somewhere else. You got to look at the big picture, not just your little union world where you get lots for doing little!! Give your head a shake pal, I already have won this argument!!!

And quit comparing everything to NAZI Germany, thats part of the reason you "unionist" make yourselves look so bad.....sad

Jim

[Hjalmar]

and the average unionized worker already pays a higher level of taxes because of their higher than average income level.

Go cry me a river BG. This typical union attitude is the reason that labour unions and their workers are fast becoming the most hated group in our society.. the group in our society that does the least and gets paid the most money. Have you any idea how people are starting to talk about your ilk when you disrupt other peoples lives, increase the price of the goods we must buy and keep our income taxes higher than necessary because of the greed in the public sector where you max out your leverage. It is people like you that are going to find out the hard way.