"right To Work" Laws In Canada

[idealisttotheend]

Why should a labour union be dictating rules and regulations in someone elses premises

Why should we have labour laws or standards? Because companies whose only job is to act only in their own best interests cannot be counted on to act fairly or justly unless there is some incentive for them to do so, (as in laws or the threat of a strike).

If the market exists to meet demands it follows that it's primary concern are those people who demand, i.e. workers. It follows further that while workers should not necessarily own the companies, it is in the market's best interest that the companies serve the people who demand as well as the owners. Or else there will be no one to buy the product. Therefore there must be a balance between the interests of the owners and the employees. Unions are a way to ensure this balance.

.

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.

They benefit only insofar as another company has strong labour unions and therefore workers who can afford their products. Classic thieves’ dilemma.

First chapter of economics 101: The market economy functions by assuming that people will act in their best interests by purchasing the lowest price product and that companies will act in their best interests by offering the lowest price possible and therefore taking business from their competitor. To argue that the [b} highest [/b] price/cost sets the benchmark is to argue either that the market has failed completely or that there is rampant collusion among companies when they set their prices and no real competition (possibly true in many sectors). As my excerpt from the interview with the Gilden VP shows companies are being forced to locate in the Third world (whether they want to or not), because if one does it then that sets the benchmark that all others must follow or be uncompetitive.

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.

In a completely rational (i.e. barter or other non monetary) economy this would have to be true, though the valuation of goods going each way could remain contentious. However if it were true under this system then no one would worry about the balance of trade and everyone knows that especially in Canada this is a key economic indicator (usually vis a vie the US). The US itself is desperately trying to decrease it's trade deficit through it's moentary policy (and this may be an election issue for them) in order to help their economy. The farther this balance tips (the more we buy vs. the more we sell) the poorer we get. This is key to my argument against out sourcing. And no I am not arguing against a monetary economy but I believe my point to be valid.

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.

If employees were weak ignorant naive and afraid then they would not defend their rights to democratic collective actions through unions as a way to defend their interests. We shall see, I suppose, if they are or if they aren't.

Given the days of 'structural' unemployment levels they may well fall into poverty and begging on the street if they quit their jobs. It is all dependant on the economy and your place in it. If you live in Calgary then you probably would be okay, Gander you are probably in trouble. Especially the undereducated and unskilled, the jobs just aren't there.

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.

To be truthful I always disliked the seniority system that seems key to unions as it is not merit based. But the truth is that the company can often not be counted on to hire based on merit either. How many people whose only skill is kissing up get promoted these days?

Again I'd argue that everyone has the choice to convince 50%+1 of their co-workers to have or not to have a union but to make it everyone for themselves takes away the right of people to an effective union if they wish it. The majority's freedom to an effective union outweighs the minority's freedom from a union if it is the wish of the majority to have one and so long as the minority can participate.

[August1991]

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. 

In a completely rational (i.e. barter or other non monetary) economy this would have to be true, though the valuation of goods going each way could remain contentious. However if it were true under this system then no one would worry about the balance of trade and everyone knows that especially in Canada this is a key economic indicator (usually vis a vie the US). The US itself is desperately trying to decrease it's trade deficit through it's moentary policy (and this may be an election issue for them) in order to help their economy. The farther this balance tips (the more we buy vs. the more we sell) the poorer we get. This is key to my argument against out sourcing. And no I am not arguing against a monetary economy but I believe my point to be valid.

You state: "The farther this balance tips (the more we buy vs. the more we sell) the poorer we get." Why? How?

Canada in fact has almost no trade deficit/surplus. The US trade deficit simply means that foreigners like US stocks and bonds.

IdealEnd, you seem to think that if poor countries produce things and sell them to us, we somehow lose.

I'm trying to understand your reasoning. Do you mean that if thousands of poor workers came to Canada and were willing to do our jobs for half the wage, this would be bad for Canadian workers? (IOW, if Canadian firms outsource to low wage countries, this drives Canadian wages down?)

So, by your reasoning, labour saving technology drives down wages too. For example, soon, a $3,000 computer will replace a $25,000/year checkout clerk. By your reasoning, those checkout clerks are going to be impoverished because they'll only earn $3,000. [Do I understand properly your reasoning?]

Now, imagine it wasn't a $3,000 computer but a $3,000/year worker in Vietnam. What's the difference?

[Hjalmar]

Why is it that you never see employers withdraw their offer if it is rejected by the union? Unions view it this way.. Look, we have this much, let's hold out for some more... I have often wondered why employers don't start withdrawing their proposals if rejected.. If unions reject a proposal they should run the risk of losing what has already been offered... I don't see that as bargaining in poor faith at all... Work it the same way as selling your home perhaps... You get an offer .. the offer is binding on the purchaser if you accept it as is.. If you tamper with it in any form the potential purchaser is off the hook.. Sellers are motivated to accept an offer as is rather than tampering with it in an effort to get a bit more and then run the risk of losing what has been offered.

[Hjalmar]

The demise of labour unions in Canada, USA and Western Europe

An old Chinese folk wisdom holds, "Of all the thirty-six ways to get out of trouble, the best way is -- leave."

In the Information Age, that Oriental wisdom will be easily

applied... If operations become uncomfortable due to excessive demands by labour unions in one location, it will be far easier to move.... Indeed, it will be possible in the Information Age to create virtual corporations whose domicile in any jurisdiction will be entirely contingent on the spot market.... An overnight increase in the degree of attempted extortion, either by labour unions or

governments, could lead to the activities and assets of the virtual corporation fleeing the jurisdiction at the speed of light.

The growing integration of microtechnology into industrial

processes means that even those firms that still deal in

manufactured products with great economies of scale are no longer as vulnerable to the leverage of violence as they once were... An example illustrating this point is the collapse of the United Auto Workers union's lengthy strike against Caterpillar, which was called off in the waning days of 1995 after almost two years... Unlike the assembly lines of the 1930's, today's Caterpillar plant employs far more skilled workers.... Pressed by foreign competition, Caterpillar farmed out much of the low-skill

work, closed inefficient plants, and spent almost $2 billion

computerizing machine tools and installing assembly robots.... Even the strike itself helped spur labor-saving efficiencies.... The company now claims to need two thousand fewer employees than when the walkout began.

[CanadaRocks]

So lets see if I have this right?

Globalization seeks to bring equilibrium to the business communities ability to compete.

In order to compete successfully business's must have access to the cheapest labour and production means that can be obtained anywhere in the world including countries where the people will work for next to nothing as anything is better than starvation, or almost anything.

Techology replaces labourers with increasing efficiency and this trend is expected to grow more prevalent.

Laborers must work for continually less and less therefore to remain viable to companies.

Deregulation means less government controls on business until there are none, in order for business's to be competitive with business's who are not regulated and therefore produce goods more cheaply.

Social Programs are being slowly eliminated as they are considered too expensive.

Am I with it so far?

So what happens when in a world of billions, when say the need for labour is reduced to say, 30% of the possible workforce by technology, and those 30% are working at the cheapest possible rate of pay that can be manufactured for their respective fields?

We'd have a very very rich business class.

We'd have 60% of our world with no means to support themselves.

Sounds to me, that if we do not change the focus of globalization to bring those other countries UP to our standards of living before allowed to join it rather than us down to theirs as is the current trend, then we're gong to wind up with a VERY rich ruling class of merchants, and an awful lot of expendable destitute poor.

If this were so, then .. who would buy the goods that these super business's produced?

Please educate me here, because it sure looks like current globalization policies may be meaning a fast buck in short term outlooks, but in the long term may well be the destruction of life as we know it.

or am I missing something here?

[Hjalmar]

or am I missing something here?

I don't think globalization will bring about the dire consequences that you envisage. It's not a race to the bottom at all. First of all you are ignoring the fact that everything is relevant. Where wages are lower so also is the cost of living. What you will likely see is a downward adjustment in wages in countries such as Canada, the USA and Western Europe while at the same time wages in Third World countries will gravitate upward. Over time it will tend to equalize living standards throughout the world somewhat which is certainly a positive if you have any compassion for your fellow man.

Sounds to me, that if we do not change the focus of globalization to bring those other countries UP to our standards of living before allowed to join it rather than us down to theirs as is the current trend, then we're gong to wind up with a VERY rich ruling class of merchants, and an awful lot of expendable destitute poor.

What you will likely witness is more people fending for themselves and creating their own source of income through small business ventures employing very few people other than the owners themselves. What you will most definately see is a widening of the income gap within jurisdictions between educated and productive people, the go-getters, so to speak, as compared to the mediocre performers. At the same time you will witness a narrowing of the income gap between people worldwide. I see that as a positive.

[idealisttotheend]

What you will likely witness is more people fending for themselves and creating their own source of income through small business ventures employing very few people other than the owners themselves.

Aha. This is the ideal of capitilism that is often defended by the right which worked very well back when capitalism was invented but does not work very well anymore. These small buisnesses you speak of, can they generate power, produce automobiles or really any other consumer good. Do I have a hope in hell to produce shoes (even if it is a better shoe) against a mass produced, mass marketed, mass distributed version and be competitive? Even the family farm is supposedly now too small, has to be factory farmed or it's too expensive.

The trend is definately towards larger and larger corporations with anti-trust legislation left by the wayside because small corporations are not competitive on a global scale. Main street is Wal-Mart and Superstore and a whole bunch of empty shop windows. We defile big government for being so inefficient while all the time praising and depending on big buisness which are just as beauracatic and don't make decisions on a local level either, (CanadaRock's super-buisnesses). The just don't have official oppositions.

What you will most definately see is a widening of the income gap within jurisdictions between educated and productive people

So the already rich (who can afford education and productive technologies) get richer and the already poor (hard to be a go-getter on an empty stomach) get poorer. The people who work for lower wages to make them more productive are still dependant on the first world to buy their products through first world corporations. How will this narrow the gap?

while at the same time wages in Third World countries will gravitate upward.

Not so long as any given factory in China can just more to Inonesia if any laws are passed to enable workers or give them more rights. The absolute lowest wage wins and this cannot produce higher wages across the board in the long term.

[Hjalmar]

How is this for a no - brainer? Jack Layton lands in Vancouver and at the first opportunity he gets, he praises the HEU [hospital employees union] for breaking the law and staging an illegal walkout after the government legislated an end to the strike and they were ordered back to work by the courts. This man is scary !!! How would we fare with such an imbicile vested with any powers? The NDP poses a danger if they get over 12 seats and have official party status..

This man is desperate for votes!!!

[CanadaRocks]

Jack Layton lands in Vancouver and at the first opportunity he gets, he praises the HEU [hospital employees union] for breaking the law and staging an illegal walkout after the government legislated an end to the strike and they were ordered back to work by the courts. This man is scary !!!

“ he’s slashing jobs that pay up to $20 an hour and contracting-out those jobs to foreign corporations that pocket handsome profits while paying workers $9 an hour. That’s disastrous for workers and their families, for health care and for the economy." Paul Moist, CUPE’s National President

BC strike-breaking legislation an attack on women and public health care: CUPE

When you talked about someone going against a court order, I figured it was worth taking a look. Way I see it someone would have to feel they had powerful strong reasons to buck the system as 19 times outa 20 you're going to lose.

Mr Hjalmar? If I were in that union I'd be telling the crew to strike too and to hell with a government that says *its good for business*. Cut my wage from $20 and move it to $9 with a businessman pocketting the difference? Know what kind of impact that would have on a family?

You know, I figure when a government puts money ahead of the well being of its People, they are no longer representing the People and it is the responsibility of every Citizen to oppose them.

And before you go running down that thought? Drop your income to $9 an hour. Try living on that with your family. Wear the shoes a couple of miles, then come back and tell me its good for the country.

I for one, do not figure that being Canadian means our rich are super rich and the rest of us run around in rags as slaves in all but name.

Mr Layton? Good work.

[takeanumber]

The true small 'l' solution is:

Those who want unions, get unions.

Those who don't want unions, don't join unions.

Workers in essential services, narrowly defined as 'life and death' services lose the right to strike, but gain the right to binding arbitration, as a consequence of their chosen proffesion.

It's not right to include such mundane things as 'laundry' as 'essential', merely as a tactic to take away people's rights of organization.

I'm not sure where this 'right to work' comes from, or how Unions somehow affect your right to work.

I mean, we know unions actually cause higher unemployment (Macroeconomics, 4th Ed.), however so do other things:

Minimum Wages

Tariffs

Quotas

So...if you're against the right for people to form unions, surely you must be against:

Minimum Wages

Tariffs of ALL kinds.

Agricultrual Quotas.

So I must ask the 'right to workers' one question:

What do you got against the struggling Canadian farmer?

[falling leaf]

Workers in essential services, narrowly defined as 'life and death' services lose the right to strike, but gain the right to binding arbitration, as a consequence of their chosen proffesion.

It's not right to include such mundane things as 'laundry' as 'essential', merely as a tactic to take away people's rights of organization.

Laundry would be essential, I was in hospital a few years ago when they had a strike , its not funny to be sitting in your own vomit and not being able to do a think about it

! Also there were food trays not taken away when they should be.

I would not want to get staph. etc after an operation . they have to keep a rooms and operating rooms spotless clean because of infections etc.

[takeanumber]

Laundry would be essential, I was in hospital a few years ago when they had a strike , its not funny to be sitting in your own vomit and not being able to do a think about it

! Also there were food trays not taken away when they should be.

I would not want to get staph. etc after an operation . they have to keep a rooms and operating rooms spotless clean because of infections etc.

Alright, essential surgery only, and relate services.

Don't forget, it takes 2 to strike. One side to be unreasonable, the other side to be unreasonable.

[August1991]

Don't forget, it takes 2 to strike. One side to be unreasonable, the other side to be unreasonable.

And don't forget, it takes 2 to have theft. One unreasonable side with a gun and one unreasonable side who refuses to hand over a wallet.

What's your point, takenumber? [Geez...]

[takeanumber]

Maybe it was a little bit too nuanced for you, here goes:

Alright, here we go.

The complaints from the right wing always centre against the Unions, in that they're making unreasonable demand ALL the time.

Yet, what I was stating is that often, governments are unreasonable too in their demands.

Make sense?

[falling leaf]

takeanumber

Don't forget, it takes 2 to strike. One side to be unreasonable, the other side to be unreasonable

Maybe so but what about all the non union workers. They are about 80% of the work force trying to make a living . You don't see them out there trying to get all they can out of their employers.

I do believe the union workers are unreasonable but I also think they are greedy as well, they have much higher wages than the non union worker and they have beneifits that are insane . They should be sharing the work with others !!!!!

You can't get some jobs unless you belong to a union and I don't think that is fair. It should be my choice not to belong to a union. . I would like to see our government bring in the "Right to Work Laws" in this country.

This will not happen 'till we have a change in our federal government ,and have a leader who will stand up to the labour unions. This will not be Jack Layton who believes that the labour union workers are more important than the non - union workers even though we are about 80% of the workforce. Considering that union workers are the highest paid and constantly asking for more --- if Jack Layton is supporting them isn't that taking from the poor to give to the rich?

[takeanumber]

Unions contribute to youth unemployment.

That's just an economic fact.

But they have a right to organize, and they have a right to strike.

It's one of those evils you gotta accept. It's a part of being tolerant of others.

In a certain way, unions, and the threat of unionize, keeps many businesses, and governments, in check.

Remember, before there were unions, there was no such thing as the 40 hour work week or minimum age laws.

I don't believe anybody is naturally virtuous, including businessmen. They gotta be held in check somehow (since transparency can't be applied to them), you have to use blunt force instruements like unions.

I don't like'em, but they're a needed evil.

[Hjalmar]

Union membership in the USA

By State

Overall............. 13.5%

Alabama.......... 9.5%

Alaska............. 22.0%

Arizona............ 5.9%

Arkansas......... 6.3%

California.......... 16.4%

Colorado.......... 8.7%

Connecticut...... 15.8%

Delaware......... 12.2%

D.C. ................. 16.8%

Florida.............. 6.5%

Georgia............. 7.2%

Hawaii............... 23.9%

Idaho................ 7.6%

Illinois............... 18.3%

Indiana............. 14.3%

Iowa................. 12.8%

Kansas.............. 9.3%

Kentucky........... 11.4%

Louisiana.......... 7.7%

Maine................ 12.9%

Maryland........... 14.1%

Massachusetts.. 14.8%

Michigan............ 21.8%

Minnesota......... 17.6%

Mississippi......... 5.6%

Missouri............. 14.2%

Montana............ 13.2%

Nebraska........... 7.6%

Nevada.............. 17.0%

New Hampshire. 10.1%

New Jersey....... 19.6%

New Mexico...... 8.0%

New York.......... 26.7%

North Carolina.. 3.7%

North Dakota... 7.5%

Ohio................. 17.7%

Oklahoma........ 8.5%

Oregon............ 15.8%

Pennsylvania... 17.0%

Rhode Island... 17.9%

South Carolina. 4.5%

South Dakota.. 5.9%

Tennessee...... 7.6%

Texas.............. 5.6%

Utah................ 6.8%

Vermont.......... 10.8%

Virginia........... 5.0%

Washington... 18.6%

West Virginia. 14.6%

Wisconsin...... 16.2%

Wyoming....... 9.0%

[idealisttotheend]

I pulled the average income by state and there is a definate correlation between union membership rates in each state and higher incomes in most cases.

Stats Can reports that unionized workers make 8% more but it can go as high as 19% in some industries.

Numbers from the Daily in 1999

Better paid workers buy more things, keep more people employed and more corporations in buisness.

[Hjalmar]

Better paid workers buy more things, keep more people employed and more corporations in buisness.

You are both correct and incorrect. Workers do get paid more in states without RTW laws... and you quote as much as 8% more and as high as 19% more in some instances.

But you are incorrect when you say that states with RTW laws keep more people employed when in fact the reverse is true. The state of Georgia, for example, which has "right to work" laws, has an unemployment rate of under 3% which is considered full employment. There is not a state in the USA without RTW laws that comes close to those unemployment numbers.

Furthermore, everything is relevant. The cost of living in states with "right to work" laws can run as high as 25% lower than states without these laws. The average spread in income is in the range of $5,000.00 per annum less in states with RTW laws v/s states without them. You do the math!!

You say better paid workers buy more things!!! Do you see that as a positive when only 25% of the workforce is in a position to buy more things? Where is your sense of fairness for the underdog non-union workers? We need to get away from "two tiers" of workers in order to level out the playing field for all workers. "Right to work" laws is the answer, you know it is the answer, but you are unwilling to admit it.

As to your comment about better paid workers keep more corporations in business.. that is absolutely false. So, I ask you how do you respond to the fact that over 50% of corporations wishing to relocate or expand will not consider a state that does not have "right to work" laws?