"right To Work" Laws In Canada

[August1991]

My clothes come from China. My bread comes from a local company that won't be shipping bread to China or Indonesia. Likewise for my eggs.

Unlike a century ago, your household does not produce them. You have "outsourced" these activities. Now, you do other things with your time and trade. You gain.

When a company oursources jobs to foreign countries, the only 'benifit' that is returned is the increased profit margin of the domestic company that exported the jobs in the first place. In America, George Bush has rewarded these companies with a tax cut.

How about when a firm outsources to... a computer? That is, when a company replaces a person by a robot or a computer? Is that bad too?

(If you think it is bad, then you are against the introduction of new technology.)

[BigGunner]

My clothes come from China. My bread comes from a local company that won't be shipping bread to China or Indonesia. Likewise for my eggs.

Unlike a century ago, your household does not produce them. You have "outsourced" these activities. Now, you do other things with your time and trade. You gain.

When a company oursources jobs to foreign countries, the only 'benifit' that is returned is the increased profit margin of the domestic company that exported the jobs in the first place. In America, George Bush has rewarded these companies with a tax cut.

How about when a firm outsources to... a computer? That is, when a company replaces a person by a robot or a computer? Is that bad too?

(If you think it is bad, then you are against the introduction of new technology.)

If the person's job is replaced by a computer, but the person can be re-trained into a job that pays about the same in wages and benifits, then I don't have a problem with it. After all, robots and computers do not pay taxes.

But this outsourcing joke is not a technological issue. Imagine one call-centre in North America paying its workers an average of $10-12/h for canvassing, etc...next week they sign a contract to outsource those very jobs to a foreign call centre that pays about 50 cents per hour...same job, same phones, same technology.

That has nothing to do with technology, but a greedy desire to make more money. George Bush rewarded them. I think they should be fine with punitive damages.

[August1991]

If the person's job is replaced by a computer

But this outsourcing joke is not a technological issue.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between outsourcing and new technology.

If I have to pay 10 cents to Joe, but 5 cents to an Indian or 5 cents for the computer, either way, Joe loses his job. In both cases, the corporations are being greedy and in both cases Joe can be retrained and in both cases, we just found a better, easier, cheaper way to do what Joe was doing. That's a good thing too.

If not, we'd still be using Smith-Coronas. Heck, we'd need electricity for that so I guess we'd have those old Underwoods, assuming we had paper to type on.

[Michael Hardner]

Unlike a century ago, your household does not produce them. You have "outsourced" these activities. Now, you do other things with your time and trade. You gain.

That's a good argument for industrialization, but I'm not against industrialization.

[Michael Hardner]

If I have to pay 10 cents to Joe, but 5 cents to an Indian or 5 cents for the computer, either way, Joe loses his job. In both cases, the corporations are being greedy and in both cases Joe can be retrained and in both cases, we just found a better, easier, cheaper way to do what Joe was doing. That's a good thing too.

If not, we'd still be using Smith-Coronas. Heck, we'd need electricity for that so I guess we'd have those old Underwoods, assuming we had paper to type on.

But the industrial revolution reverberated with a host of social changes - improvements to working conditions and so forth. If we're reducing the amount of labour it takes to produce things, doesn't it follow that a reduction in working hours is imminent ?

It happened after the industrial revolution.

[Hjalmar]

If I have to pay 10 cents to Joe, but 5 cents to an Indian or 5 cents for the computer, either way, Joe loses his job. In both cases, the corporations are being greedy and in both cases Joe can be retrained and in both cases, we just found a better, easier, cheaper way to do what Joe was doing. That's a good thing too

Not necessarily greed on the part of corporations.. In most instances today it is through necessity in order to remain competitive.

How many jobs should North America kill off that used to pay decent wages and supported thousands of other service jobs before we realise that it is consumers spending power that drives the economy?

That's a myth. Wages can go nowhere but down in this day and age because we have priced ourselves out of the market just like Germany who has now become the largest exporter of jobs. If the jobs cannot be outsourced people will find a way to remain competitive through the use of computers, robots etc. But then of course you could follow the example of the Luddites in West Yorkshire England who launched a terrorist campaign against the use of automated cropping machines back in 1811. They burned factories and murdered factory owners who dared to adopt the new technology.

[August1991]

That's a good argument for industrialization, but I'm not against industrialization.

And nor should you be against "out-sourcing" or "free trade" or "globalization". They are just like finding a new technology, or "industrialization" as you call it.

But the industrial revolution reverberated with a host of social changes - improvements to working conditions and so forth.

All true. My fear is that, as in 1914, some people might take all this for granted.

If we're reducing the amount of labour it takes to produce things, doesn't it follow that a reduction in working hours is imminent ?

Maybe. But some people enjoy working, which has been my personal philosophy. (Get paid to do something you would do for free.)

[Hjalmar]

The Way of the Future

WestJet has fast become the most successful airline in Canada.. And I'll tell you why.. they are non-union. That's right, non-union... WestJet president and CEO Clive Beddoe has it right.. WestJet employs 3,900 people and had 50,000 job applications last year to fill 900 jobs. WestJet, which has been profitable every year since it started in 1996, operates 1,550 flights per week and had

net earnings of $51.7 million last year.

Clive Beddoe said that some pilots who started with WestJet from the beginning are earning an annual salary of $113,000 while working 85 hours/month while at Air Canada they fly 55 hours/month and earn $180,000... On top of that, WestJet sweetens the pot through profit sharing, employee stock purchase plans and stock options.. The result is that 85% of employees are

shareholders in the company and the average cheque equals 20% of salary.

"We want to turn all our employees into capitalists" Beddoe said. "We want them to think like owners... We push decision-making down as far as we can... We are a bottom-up organization.. My job is to make sure our people have the resources to do the job, where we are going, how to get there, and then we let them loose

to get to that result".. Beddoe said he doesn't run WestJet, it runs itself. . "I guide it, I steer it and make sure it has the resources it needs... It's a powerful formula and it works well".

Recent excerpts from Alan Daniels, Vancouver Sun

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

I predict that almost all operations will be run this way in the future.. Clive Beddoe has it right and that's the way I would do it as well... If governments don't have the guts to amend our labor laws, we amend the way we operate so as to exclude labor unions altogether... That's the way of the future.

[Hjalmar]

The Canadian dollar at par with US currency!!!

We are all consumers and everyone in the country benefits from a strong Canadian currency... However, for exporters, it's a different story.

Let's take a good look at this... Back in the early 70's our dollar was near par and actually went to $1.03 at one time.. Our exporters had no problems in those days and prices were competitive.. What has happened over the past 30 years? Why do our exporters today need a devalued currency to compete? Our dollar is now nearing 74 cents and is expected to go much higher.

I'll tell you what has happened... Our labour unions have maxed out their leverage and capitalized on our anemic currency over the years and squeezed out every penny they could from their employers who now need to rely on this devalued currency to compete... Are our labour unions prepared to forego these unearned pay increases over the past 30 years? Most Canadians would welcome a Canadian dollar at par.. I fully expect our labour unions to allow a smooth transition for something that will benefit

everybody in the country.. That means about a 35 to 40% cut in pay to salvage their jobs in the future... I'm sure they're prepared for that... what do you think?

By the way that applies to CEO's and politicians as well.

[BigGunner]

The Way of the Future

WestJet has fast become the most successful airline in Canada.. And I'll tell you why.. they are non-union. That's right, non-union... WestJet president and CEO Clive Beddoe has it right.. WestJet employs 3,900 people and had 50,000 job applications last year to fill 900 jobs. WestJet, which has been profitable every year since it started in 1996, operates 1,550 flights per week and had

net earnings of $51.7 million last year.

Clive Beddoe said that some pilots who started with WestJet from the beginning are earning an annual salary of $113,000 while working 85 hours/month while at Air Canada they fly 55 hours/month and earn $180,000... On top of that, WestJet sweetens the pot through profit sharing, employee stock purchase plans and stock options.. The result is that 85% of employees are

shareholders in the company and the average cheque equals 20% of salary.

"We want to turn all our employees into capitalists" Beddoe said. "We want them to think like owners... We push decision-making down as far as we can... We are a bottom-up organization.. My job is to make sure our people have the resources to do the job, where we are going, how to get there, and then we let them loose

to get to that result".. Beddoe said he doesn't run WestJet, it runs itself. . "I guide it, I steer it and make sure it has the resources it needs... It's a powerful formula and it works well".

Recent excerpts from Alan Daniels, Vancouver Sun

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

I predict that almost all operations will be run this way in the future.. Clive Beddoe has it right and that's the way I would do it as well... If governments don't have the guts to amend our labor laws, we amend the way we operate so as to exclude labor unions altogether... That's the way of the future.

This is how you defeat the union movement...

You treat employees with dignity and respect, pay them a decent wage with benefits, and you will never have to worry about them voting in a union...ever.

If only every business took care of its workers the way that westjet has taken care of theirs, then there would be no unions.

Sadly, this is not the case. Young people getting laid off from their jobs in BC because they hit the 500 hour maximum and must be moved from the $6 min. wage to the $8/h min. wage.....'get rid of them, and find a new kid that can work for $6 per hour'...

Taking away the rights of workers that are exploited and abused is the very reason that unions are brought in...to fight for their rights.

[willy]

Sadly, this is not the case. Young people getting laid off from their jobs in BC because they hit the 500 hour maximum and must be moved from the $6 min. wage to the $8/h min. wage.....'get rid of them, and find a new kid that can work for $6 per hour'...

As an employer I can tell you that this is just not the case. It cost more to train an employee than the wage increase saving would be to fire and hire new. It does happen that these young workers traditionally have high turn over. This is their choice as they have changing life circumstances. These are mostly high school students.

This is a good program. The program gets new employees their first bit of experience. I hire people when I need them; I keep them when they provide me more value than I have to expend to keep them. Businesses are not a welfare office but I am always excited to find an energetic young learning employee that would like to learn and grow within my company. They will make me money and the $6/hour helps me get them experience until they provide full value. I can then afford extra training and limited time requirements that young employees have.

[BigGunner]

Sadly, this is not the case. Young people getting laid off from their jobs in BC because they hit the 500 hour maximum and must be moved from the $6 min. wage to the $8/h min. wage.....'get rid of them, and find a new kid that can work for $6 per hour'...

As an employer I can tell you that this is just not the case. It cost more to train an employee than the wage increase saving would be to fire and hire new. It does happen that these young workers traditionally have high turn over. This is their choice as they have changing life circumstances. These are mostly high school students.

This is a good program. The program gets new employees their first bit of experience. I hire people when I need them; I keep them when they provide me more value than I have to expend to keep them. Businesses are not a welfare office but I am always excited to find an energetic young learning employee that would like to learn and grow within my company. They will make me money and the $6/hour helps me get them experience until they provide full value. I can then afford extra training and limited time requirements that young employees have.

There has been a precident in years past that a lower wage be paid to young people, or students in college etc.

But this pay gap was 25 cents or 50 cents per hour. Not a large gap, but a minor incentive to hire a few students for weekend relief work, etc.

If you go back even further, there was even a legal pay gap between men and women too.

But a $2.00 per hour gap? There is no precident for that, and its just unfair.

How is a young person or new employee supposed to save some cash for university - especially after the gov't has allowed for 200% + tuition fee increases?

I found out afterwards that my own cousin was working for a year after completing her own 500 hours min. and she was still getting $6 per hour.

This joke is nothing more than a political gift to the fast food industry who donated heavily to the BC Liberals.

Each youth that starts a job and completes 500 hours, has saved $1000 for her boss. A real nice gift from the government. At the end, there is no guarantee that she will have a job at 500 hours, and in reality, most get laid off or fired for some picky reason.

And Gordon Campbell promised an end to business subsidies. Another LIE told by a LIAR, in a party full of thieves, vandals, and liars.

Its that simple...Liberals are Liars. Vote them out of office.

[willy]

This joke is nothing more than a political gift to the fast food industry who donated heavily to the BC Liberals.

Completely unfounded.

Each youth that starts a job and completes 500 hours, has saved $1000 for her boss.

I am a boss and I take a chance by employing someone with no experience and unleash them on my customers. I spend $1000.00 at least to train them and then I pay taxes(workers comp, cpp, ect.) for the right to employ them. Get off it. I just want to run a business and if I keep an employee past 500 hours they make more than $8.00 an hour because they will earn it.

As for the $2 dollar spread. This is 25%. Look in the past and you will find a comparative percentage in other provinces.

If companies don't follow the law they should be put out of business but don't make that into the governments fault.

Lastly, at least young kids will have jobs with this government. The BC economy is finally growing again. We all need jobs and if the NDP come back in, I now my business will move to Alberta and so will many more. I can afford to work under the NDP.

Maybe everyone can get government jobs if they get back into office. (I hear they pay well)

[falling leaf]

willy

I am a boss and I take a chance by employing someone with no experience and unleash them on my customers. I spend $1000.00 at least to train them and then I pay taxes(workers comp, cpp, ect.) for the right to employ them. Get off it. I just want to run a business and if I keep an employee past 500 hours they make more than $8.00 an hour because they will earn it.

As for the $2 dollar spread. This is 25%. Look in the past and you will find a comparative percentage in other provinces.

Willy you are the type of man I would want to work for! I work hard and know I am good at what I do. Keep up the good work ! My daughter is working and going to college, Its people like you that give her a job while going to college. I am going to ask others , why would an employer give a high wage to someone who is untrained?

[CanadaRocks]

I have nothing to say about decreasing wages. It's the way of the future and is bound to happen. And it will happen in lock step with diminishing unionization.

Currently with the perspective on globalization being for nations world wide to meet at the lowest common labour denominator, I'd say your right.

However don't expect me to be cheerful when faced with the reality of our generations to come living in a world of increasing poverty which our leaders are purposefully creating.

In fact, likely the only way one CAN feel good about it, is if you expect to be unaffected by it or to gain from it, or of course, if you've convinced yourself it could never really happen, which is likely what many erroneously Canadians think.

[Hjalmar]

Case Laws Around The World

The evidence from around the world suggests that freedom of association should be construed to include the freedom not to join a union; courts of law from many countries have issued decisions to this effect.

United States

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

As early as 1947, the Congress of the United States adopted the Taft-Hartley Act. Section 14 B of this Act reads: Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by state or territorial Law. The Supreme Court of the United States declared the Taft-Hartley Act constitutional in 1949, when it heard Lincoln Federated Union v. Northwestern I and M; and in AFL v. American Sash Door Company... Since the 1940s, 22 states have adopted right-to-work laws and these are still in force today.... These states are now among the most prosperous in the United States and have some of the lowest rates of unemployment in the country.... Since 1949, hundreds of court decisions under the Taft-Hartley Act have confirmed that the freedom of association

includes freedom from coercion to join a union and the freedom to pay or not to pay union dues, even in states that have not enacted right-to-work laws.

Great Britain

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

The British Parliament, when it adopted the Trade Disputes Act of 1906, included a provision for closed-shop unions... Seventy years later the closed-shop union was challenged in the famous case of Young, James, and Webster v. British Rail. In 1976, Young, James, and Webster, employees of British Rail, cancelled their membership in the Trades Union Congress and refused to

pay union dues... They were promptly dismissed by British Rail and a court battle ensued... Five years later, in August 1981, the European Court in Strasbourg issued a judgment in which it ordered British Rail to reinstate the three claimants in their jobs and to pay them £145,000 in compensation for the damage they had suffered.

This decision was a first step towards eliminating closed-shop union provisions in Great Britain... Employment Acts adopted by the British Parliament in 1982, 1988 and 1990 gradually outlawed the provision of closed-shop and mandatory union dues in Great Britain.

Section 1 (1) of the Employment Act of 1990 states:

1 (1) It is unlawful to refuse a person employment:

(a-- because he is or is not a member of a trade union or

(b-- because he is unwilling to accept a requirement

(i) to take steps to become or to remain or not to become a member of a trade union;

(ii) to make payments or suffer deductions in the event of his not being a member of a trade union.

Switzerland

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

Section 356(1)(a) of the Code of Obligations adopted in 1911 and further amended in 1956 reads:

The provisions of a collective agreement or of a private

agreement that coerce employers or laborers to join an

association are null and void.

Belgium

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

The closed-shop was outlawed in Belgium by a law adopted on May 24, 1921 and still in force. It reads:

Sec. 1: The freedom of association is guaranteed. No employee will be forced to join a union nor hindered from joining a union.

France

----------

Statute No. 56-416 enacted on April 27, 1956 reads:

1. No employer shall consider the fact that a candidate is a

member or is not a member of a union nor that the candidate takes part or takes no part in the union in decisions pertaining to hiring, assignment of work, social benefits, disciplinary action nor dismissal.

2. Closed-shop provisions to coerce an employer to hire or

maintain in employment only union members are null and void.

Japan

---------

Neither the Labor Relations Act of Japan of 1946 nor any labour law adopted since by the Diete has authorized the

closed-shop (International Labor Office 1980). The freedom to join a union is guaranteed by section 28 of the Constitution of Japan-1946 (Blaustein and Franz 1993: 15-22). Since 1946, the Japanese courts have consistently ruled that the freedom of association under section 28 includes the freedom from coercion to join a trade union.

New Zealand

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

Section 99.1 of the Industrial Relations Act of New Zealand reads: 99.1 Nothing in any award or any collective agreement or in any other agreement between one or more workers and an employer or employers or a union of employers or an organization of employers shall require a person:

(a) to become or remain a member of any union . . .

Eire

---------

The sections of the Constitution adopted by Ireland in 1937 that deal with freedom of association read:

Sec. 40.3 The State guarantees in its laws to respect and, as far as practicable, by the laws to defend and vindicate the personal right of the citizens. Sec. 40.6 1o The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights subject to public order and morality:

iii) the right of citizens to form associations and unions.

International charters

South American Convention on Human Rights

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

This convention (also called the Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica) was signed by Mexico, the countries of Central America, South America and states in the Caribbean-30 countries overall. Section 8.3 reads:

8.3 No one may be compelled to belong to a trade union.

African Charter on Human and People Rights

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

The African Charter on Human and People Rights was signed by 49 African countries in Liberia on July 20, 1979.

Sec. 10(1): Every individual shall have the right to free

association provided that he abides by the law.

Sec. 10(2): No one may be compelled to join an association

[Hjalmar]

In 1995 Roger Warren, a member of the miners union, confessed to setting a bomb at the Royal Oak Mines in Yellowknife.. The murder of 9 miners occured during a violent 18 month strike that saw daily confrontations and 2 other explosions at the mine as well as skirmishes with the RCMP. The 9 dead miners had crossed the picket line to work.

The families of the 9 deceased miners have launched a lawsuit and are claiming millions in damages.

Roger Warren is serving a life sentence at Stony Mountain

Penitentiary for his part in the incident.

Does anyone believe that Roger Warren acted alone in this incident?

[idealisttotheend]

Your extremely well researched and very detailed attack on closed shop provisions is interesting. It, of course, only exists to undermine unions and of course that is only done to reduce wages By a measly average of 8% in 1999 (StatsCan, The Daily, Sep 26,2002) though it has been higher and that is what you want to get rid of.

"Right to work" provisions are clearly undemocratic and have nothing to do with rights and everything to do with removing them. Unfortunately words such as "rights" and "freedom" have been hijacked by one side of the political spectrum in their attempt to look like they act for the good of the masses. The Fraser Institute's "Economic Freedom" index (tracking tax rates) and the 'Patriot' act in the US are examples of the new Orwellian language which some of us thought only existed in fiction or autocracy's. I fear that since our society is based on these very concepts that we are going to go the way of the Roman Empire. But then I am an idealist right?

I have no particular love of unions, having worked for one and researched them some myself. They are particularily flawed institutions and these days are only for people who for the most part don't need them. Nevertheless they are (or rather could be) a powerful tool for workers to maintain the balance between employers and the employed. Right to work laws basically take away this right.

Given: that 50% + 1 of workers need to vote for a union for it to be certified and given that 50% + 1 of workers can vote to decertify it, a union is a democratic institution. These people who are supposed have the 'right to work,' have the right to convince their fellow workers that a union is not in their best interests and have it decertified. Or they have the right to vote to change the policy of that union they don't like. But in a democracy, the minority must often follow the policies of the majority. Surely you do not suggest that an employee have the 'right' not to follow a company directive or that I should have the right to not pay my taxes or break the law as I see fit?

Right to work laws effectively make a union impossible and you know it. Collective barganing agreements are useless as is the protection of workers to strike. Therefore unions themselves are useless. Your intention is to make us more 'productive.' Productivity in the economic sense is the art of doing more work for less money. Since it is often not possible to do more work or work harder, it comes down simply to be paid less money. The less we are paid the more productive we are. There is a good argument that it was Canada's low 'productivity' (while being able to sell into the US market) that accounted for the good times of the 70s and 80s. People who make less spend less and so there is no net benefit to anyone but the more 'productive' countries (such as communist China) and of course the companies who farm out these jobs to communist China reducing their costs while at the same time charging the same prices and therefore greatly increase their profits. Of course this is only short term (unless and until the Chinese start paying six months wages for a pair of shoes) but the obvious result of the current race to the bottom (what, you mean people have to make money to spend money, by God) is lost on almost everyone.

People were given the right to unionize for a reason. The common man was finally seen to have earned it after fighting and dieing in the great wars. The depression pointed out the problems of the capitalist system (GM for example made a record profit in 1937 the same year they were closing plants and cutting people’s wages, there’s a depression on don’t you know. No matter how badly run they often are, they are run by the people who are supposed to have the power in this country.

Part of having a union is that the majority of workers will act for all the workers. This ensures against a race to the bottom (the person most deperate for a job set the wage rate for everyone). A minority may disagree with their union but their recourse is to join with others to become the majority or to get rid of the union. To argue against a closed shop is to argue against a democratic government becaue the principle is exactly the same. But then that argument is coming is it not, or have we already had it since we have been dismantling and discrediting democratic government since the FTA was made law?

[Hjalmar]

idealist

You're living in yesterdays world.. time to get up to speed. Labour unions served a useful purpose at one time but in this day and age they have become redundant.

Right to work laws effectively make a union impossible and you know it.

Why? Do you believe they should have a monopoly on labour? Would you like to see our monopoly laws [where labour unions were exempted many years ago] dropped?

"Right to work" provisions are clearly undemocratic and have nothing to do with rights and everything to do with removing them.

What is undemocratic about it? What about the rights of all the non-union workers? In fact, allowing labour unions the monopoly over labour that they presently have does in fact remove rights from non-union workers by denying them employment at unionized sites if they do not wish to be represented by a labour union.

Right to work laws effectively make a union impossible and you know it. Collective barganing agreements are useless as is the protection of workers to strike.

The world has changed drastically and the "strike" has become an outdated weapon. Corporations have matured and workers have matured... Time to use more mature tools.

People who make less spend less and so there is no net benefit to anyone but the more 'productive' countries (such as communist China) and of course the companies who farm out these jobs to communist China reducing their costs while at the same time charging the same prices and therefore greatly increase their profits.

Of course everything is relevant.. you live in a low wage jurisdiction and costs are lower. Speaking of farming out production to lower wage countries -- who do you think are the biggest cheerleaders for strong labour unions in the country where these products are marketed? You guessed it.. these same corporations. When you have a product manufactured in Canada for example with union labour they market the product in this country at a modest profit. This then becomes the benchmark for pricing. Take this locally produced product of the market and you would see these same prices tumble. So, in effect, labour unions throughout Canada is what is enabling these corporations, that you condemn, to make these massive profits for the products they manufacture in other lower cost jurisdictions... Give this some deep thought before responding!!!!

[idealisttotheend]

idealist

You're living in yesterdays world.. time to get up to speed. Labour unions served a useful purpose at one time but in this day and age they have become redundant.

Right to work laws effectively make a union impossible and you know it.

Why? Do you believe they should have a monopoly on labour? Would you like to see our monopoly laws [where labour unions were exempted many years ago] dropped?

"Right to work" provisions are clearly undemocratic and have nothing to do with rights and everything to do with removing them.

What is undemocratic about it? What about the rights of all the non-union workers? In fact, allowing labour unions the monopoly over labour that they presently have does in fact remove rights from non-union workers by denying them employment at unionized sites if they do not wish to be represented by a labour union.

Right to work laws effectively make a union impossible and you know it. Collective barganing agreements are useless as is the protection of workers to strike.

The world has changed drastically and the "strike" has become an outdated weapon. Corporations have matured and workers have matured... Time to use more mature tools.

People who make less spend less and so there is no net benefit to anyone but the more 'productive' countries (such as communist China) and of course the companies who farm out these jobs to communist China reducing their costs while at the same time charging the same prices and therefore greatly increase their profits.

Of course everything is relevant.. you live in a low wage jurisdiction and costs are lower. Speaking of farming out production to lower wage countries -- who do you think are the biggest cheerleaders for strong labour unions in the country where these products are marketed? You guessed it.. these same corporations. When you have a product manufactured in Canada for example with union labour they market the product in this country at a modest profit. This then becomes the benchmark for pricing. Take this locally produced product of the market and you would see these same prices tumble. So, in effect, labour unions throughout Canada is what is enabling these corporations, that you condemn, to make these massive profits for the products they manufacture in other lower cost jurisdictions... Give this some deep thought before responding!!!!

Indeed I have been giving this some deep thought for awhile now. Myself, I have no desire to compete with, or be more 'productive' than a worker in communist China.

  Do you believe they should have a monopoly on labour?  Would you like to see our monopoly laws [where labour unions were exempted many years ago] dropped?

It is not for me to decide. If 50% +1 of the workers of a given organization want a union they should have the right to it, if 50% +1 don't then they should not have a union. But because they have ought to have the right to collective action (freedom to) some people may have to live with a union they don’t necessarily agree with (resulting in some loss of freedom from). Broadly you yourself have stated that 75% of workers are non-unionized so this hardly constitutes a monopoly even if all unions did work together, which they clearly do not. We have seen unions competing against each other recently in Alberta with health care unions and early union history is rife with competitions between various unions.

In fact, allowing labour unions the monopoly over labour that they presently have does in fact remove rights from non-union workers by denying them employment at unionized sites if they do not wish to be represented by a labour union.

To reiterate: As a worker I am "denied employment" at any company that I do not choose to follow the directives and standards of. Is it my "right" to work there even if I don't agree with management? Why then is it my right to work there if I don't agree with the union (which I can at least vote to change)/ Furthermore, do I have the "right" to not pay my taxes if I don't wish to be represented by a government. Clearly not as this would result in chaos and undermine democratic government. I have only the right to influence the laws of said government or change it, not to simply not participate even if I have no desire to be represented by the current government or no government at all.

Corporations have matured and workers have matured... Time to use more mature tools.

Such as?

Of course everything is relevant.. you live in a low wage jurisdiction and costs are lower.

I'll give you that, the wages people make in third world countries can get people more than they get here. However neither you or I would ever want to trade places with these people. The reason no one from the third world is participating in this august forum is because they cannot afford computers and internet connections, to say nothing of food and decent sanitation.

who do you think are the biggest cheerleaders for strong labour unions in the country where these products are marketed?  You guessed it.. these same corporations.  When you have a product manufactured in Canada for example with union labour they market the product in this country at a modest profit.  This then becomes the benchmark for pricing.  Take this locally produced product of the market and you would see these same prices tumble.    So, in effect, labour unions throughout Canada is what is enabling these corporations, that you condemn, to make these massive profits for the products they manufacture in other lower cost jurisdictions...

This argument is clearly insane. Kindly name one corporation that is cheerleading for strong labour unions.

It is in their best interest that unions are strong because this ensures adequate wages allowing people the money to buy their products but corporations never recognize this and it will eventually hurt them (and us right along with them). As for benchmark pricing we both know that is the lowest cost per unit that sets the benchmark and not the highest price. Evidence of this follows

David Gutnik -- Dispatches Feb 25, 2004 CBC Radio One. 

Interview with Benito Massey VP Gilden Active Wear of Montreal on a factory in Haiti manufacturing Gilden products

Gutnik:  Now if I was working in a factory for Gilden in Montreal what would my salary be?

Massey: I would say About $10 an hour.

….

G: You said the wage was [here in Haiti]……

M: You can make about 75 cents an hour.

G: But that’s one tenth of the wage!

M: Yes…. but you cannot compare the two.

G: But you sell that T shirt for the same price if it’s made in Haiti or Montreal. 

M: [seven second silence] Listen I think you are putting a trick question there, it is very difficult to answer….  Yes [we do charge the same price], but in order to compete …. You have to be in a third world county.

This VP has just admitted that the price is the same no matter their costs and that they feel they have to move to a third world county to compete against the lowest labour costs of their competetiors.

Gilden can keep their prices up because the classic thieves dilemma has not caught up with them yet. There are still people with well paid jobs (possibly thanks to unions but not necessarily) who can afford to buy Gilden's products at the old prices. And because the average consumer does not realize how much their costs have dropped they do not cry bloody murder that Gilden's labour costs have dropped 1000% but their price has not. Please give one example of a unionized clothing company in Canada that is allowing Gilden to charge these prices.

As to the union, everyone knows full well that any sort of secondary manufacturing job still in Canada can easily be farmed out even to the US and so get in line or the company will be shut down and move, (remember MCI in Winnepig among others). This applies to the wage rates of non-unionized workers just as well. Work for what we give you or we'll move to China, (this is the real "right" you are defending).

Furthermore your argument is specious for the very reason that the market is supposed to give us the lowest price by having companies with lower costs lower their prices to compete with their higher priced, higher cost competitor’s. If this is not happening, (and you are arguing that in fact the highest cost product is setting the 'benchmark' which I assume is the price) than why not? Do we need to rewrite all the economic theory of the free market which says this is impossible? Of course we do since consumers are not seeing the benefit of the lower labour costs you defend but I doubt you’ll agree.

If you really believe that unions in Canada are pushing prices up then I take it your argument against unions means you feel that corporate profits are too high? Are you willing to go on record and say this? If not then why bother to argue against the unions? Please don't say freedom because the idea of collective action is the heart of democracy and means that some must accept that which they do not like if it is the desire of the majority, so long as they are able to become part of that majority. Anything else is anarchy not freedom.

But then when people can work only for themselves that makes them compete with each other which is exactly what you want since it pushes wages and standards down, doesn't it?

[August1991]

Indeed I have been giving this some deep thought for awhile now. Myself, I have no desire to compete with, or be more 'productive' than a worker in communist China.

Would you accept to compete with a robot? (I assume the robot is more "productive" than you. In other words, the robot is able to produce more widgets at a lower "wage" than you're prepared to accept.)

If you answer "no" to that question, then you are denying society a cheaper way to produce widgets and you shouldn't be using a computer. You should be typing on a typewriter right now.

Trade is no different than a new technology. It allows us to do something better, or do it in an easier way.

Why then is it my right to work there if I don't agree with the union (which I can at least vote to change)/ Furthermore, do I have the "right" to not pay my taxes if I don't wish to be represented by a government. Clearly not as this would result in chaos and undermine democratic government.

IdealEnd, I agree with the way you think. A union is like a government. We have no choice; we must belong. IdelaEnd, do you like coercion?

(In the case of a government, people can vote in an election - assuming they live in a democracy. Canada's a democracy. Who do you think will be the next Prime Minister of Canada?)

[idealisttotheend]

Would you accept to compete with a robot?  ... If you answer "no" to that question, then you are denying society a cheaper way to produce widgets and you shouldn't be using a computer. You should be typing on a typewriter right now

As someone who obviously knows his/her history than I think we both realise that this is the fundamental question of the current revolution. I have to compete with a robot whether I want to or not. Since Taylorism and Ford's assembly line cutting the production time for his magneto to a 1/4 of the old time the question here is, is automation in the best interests of humanity (and this is not obvious) and if it is then who should reap the benefits? (These are not properly robots but the concept is the same). Automation did lead to the famous $5 day and cheap cars (and define the century in economic terms at least) but more and more we see companies making larger and larger profits due to automation while workers see little or any benefit. Prices have not dropped in line with the drop in production costs (see Rifkin The end of Work). Else we would be seeing deflation and not stagflation (which we are not even seeing anymore).

If we accept that we are homo economis (to borrow from Ms. McQuaig) then we are in grave danger of making the human race redundant and obsolete in economic terms. Or at least except for anyone with an IQ over 120 or so who can do the "skilled" jobs. We will likely find ourselves short of these people in any event, at least until those jobs can be automated which is quite possible. This will create (and is creating) all sorts of social problems unless dealt with soon (like before the next recession, the savings rate is already at zero, there is no more money to borrow).

However this is probably the subject for another 'thread'.

Trade is no different than a new technology. It allows us to do something better, or do it in an easier way.

This I disagree with vigorously. If we were talking about trade between equally wealthy countries (as Mr. Smith intended) I would agree. But this is far from the reality. A worker in a third world country is not on the same level as a robot and maybe it is because we don't see the difference that things are the way they are. It is just a new way to race to the bottom. Furthermore it is not in our best interest in the long term (the long term being something both the market and our system of government are very poorly set up to address). Either:

You believe in a national economy (or some approximation thereof) in which case we are paying other people (no matter how little) to do 'our' work resulting in both a transfer of real wealth (again no matter how little) to other people and reducing the circulation of money between employees and employers resulting in a shrinking of GDP.

You believe in a global economy in which case than equilibrium will soon set in lowering our living standards and raising the people who we are 'trading' with i.e. getting to produce our products.

We have no choice; we must belong. IdelaEnd, do you like coercion?

Coerce  To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.  --Dictionary.com

Indeed I do not, this is why I defend my right to form a union even a closed shop union. A union (may) protect me from pressure and intimidation by my employer including pressure on my wage by hiring people excursing their "right" to not belong to the union and to work for a lower wage. Or to force me to work overtime because if I don't I will be fired. I defend the right to form a union for the very reason that it can protect me from coercion by my employer.

Furthermore the argument that "we must belong" is a fallacy (in the case of unions not governments). We must belong only insofar as 50% +1 of our co-workers feel we must. As soon as 50% +1 do not agree we must belong than the union is toast (even for those who still want to belong). There (should be, though there usually is on the employer side) no pressure intimidation or threats involved in this press therefore it is not coercion. It is a balance.

Who do you think will be the next Prime Minister of Canada?)

Martin, unfortunately (I like the man himself but he has surrounded himself with incompetent advertising men/women for advisers and shown no mettle necessary to actually bring his ideals into practice). The Alliance/Conservatives made a serious mistake in keeping Harper as this is clearly their election to take from the divided and unfocused Liberals. The man has too much baggage (like 'firewalls' and such) and while he is the slickest (most polished) leader they have had in awhile that same slickness will lead people to distrust him and not vote for him. If they'd gotten Lord, Klien or even that intellectual giant Harris I think they would have taken it, (or possibly even Strahl or Grey someone with a little better connection to the common folk and with more of an honest reputation as honesty will be The Issue).

[August1991]

is automation in the best interests of humanity (and this is not obvious) and if it is then who should reap the benefits?

IMV, you rightly ask two important questions. But let me clarify one point first. By automation, I mean all forms of technology including, for example, medical advances and so on.

New technology must be in the best interests of humanity if it's adopted voluntarily. Consider cell phones. If people buy them and use them, it must be because people are better off. (True, I am only looking at the consumer whereas you seem to look only at the producer. I would argue you make a grave error in this. We don't live to produce; we live to consume.)

But following your practice, what about the producer? In particular, what about the guys who make, install and repair public phone booths? Very soon, when everyone has a cell phone, these guys are going to be out of a job.

Which kind of leads to your second question. Does new technology mean more and more poor unemployed people and fewer and fewer really rich capitalists? Certainly not. The phone booth guys are not going to stay unemployed for long. They'll start to do something else with their time and produce something new. This is precisely what economic growth is all about.

Think of electric lights and all the candlemakers who lost their jobs and then went on to produce something else.

Trade is no different than a new technology. It allows us to do something better, or do it in an easier way.

This I disagree with vigorously. If we were talking about trade between equally wealthy countries (as Mr. Smith intended) I would agree. But this is far from the reality.

Poor countries can trade with rich countries and both benefit. That's what Smith said. I'm sure Bill Gates is happy to have a cleaning lady and I'm sure the cleaning lady is happy to work for Bill Gates.

Technology is simply a way to convert one or several things into something else. Technology, for example, means raising sheep, cutting wool, spinning yarn, then knitting a sweater. A hundred or so years ago, many Canadians did exactly that.

Almost no one does that now. Instead, we work at a job (let's say McDonald's), earn money and then buy a sweater. Trade is like a new technology: produce hamburgers for five hours and get a sweater. (Who is producing the sweater? A Canadian? A Scot? Someone in China? Who cares? But I assume the person is voluntarily choosing to produce the sweater.)

You believe in a national economy (or some approximation thereof) in which case we are paying other people (no matter how little) to do 'our' work resulting in both a transfer of real wealth (again no matter how little) to other people and reducing the circulation of money between employees and employers resulting in a shrinking of GDP.

WTF? When someone in Vietnam produces shoes that are sent to Canada, Canada has to send something to Vietnam. The Vietnamese don't send us shoes for nothing in return. If you say Canada should produce its own shoes (and not buy Vietnamese shoes) then the Vietnamese will stop buying that other stuff from us.

A union (may) protect me from pressure and intimidation by my employer including pressure on my wage by hiring people excursing their "right" to not belong to the union and to work for a lower wage.

Your best protection against a nasty employer is to quit and find a better job. But I think what you mean is that employees are somehow weak, ignorant, naive and afraid. If they quit, they will fall into dire poverty and wind up begging on the street. [is this your honest view of ordinary people?]

Who do you think will be the next Prime Minister of Canada?)

Martin, unfortunately

My point in asking the question was to say that the best democracy is one in which we vote everyday, we have an interest in voting wisely and our vote expresses somehow the degree of our opinion on issues. When you participate in a market, you do precisely that.

One ballot with an X once every four years? Buying or selling in a market every day? No comparison.

[playfullfellow]

I have been following this thread for quite a while now and have really enjoyed all the different opinions people have expressed. What I find most interesting is how this thread has gone from right to work laws to automation. I agree with August in that technology is not a bad thing, usually. I work in construction and have found advances in technology to our and our customers benefits. Has this technology put people out of work? Not likely, people that may have been a hammer swinger before have become people who keep this new technology up and running for us. One problem with technology is that it does not always work and needs constant care, we need people to do this. We also need people to distribute this technology to us working class joe's. I think this is true across the board. People will always diversify when need be. I also feel that people should be able to work where ever they please and qualify to do so. Belonging to a union should not be a prerequisite to do so. A person should be hired on their merits and then the choice should be theirs to join a union or not.

Another thought in this thread is that outsourcing to another country with lower wage levels costs jobs in this country. Well, yeah, this is true because of wage levels and taxes, companies can not produce some products as cost effectively here as else where. Do I blame them for doing so, nope, it is the same as me taking the job that gives me the biggest return. As August stated, these countries produce products we use but they also need products we produce. As a country with vast resources, we need to promote production. Canada could be one of the richest and most diversified countries in the world if we play our cards right.

[Hjalmar]

Idealist

To reiterate: As a worker I am "denied employment" at any company that I do not choose to follow the directives and standards of. Is it my "right" to work there even if I don't agree with management? Why then is it my right to work there if I don't agree with the union

That's no comparison -- The employer owns the company and employees abide by those decisions... Why should a labour union be dictating rules and regulations in someone elses premises?

This argument is clearly insane. Kindly name one corporation that is cheerleading for strong labour unions.

Corporations are not cheerleading for strong labour unions where they are producing the product. However these same corporations benefit immensely from strong labour union presence in the countries where they market these products as their higher costs set the benchmark for pricing. Doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to figure that one out.