"right To Work" Laws In Canada

[Hjalmar]

Approximately 75% of the work-force in Canada is non-union. Should these workers be free to work anywhere they wish without being forced to join a labour union and pay union dues? In other words, should labour union membership be voluntary?

Some facts to consider:-

[1] 22 states in the USA now have "right to work" laws [Voluntary Unionism] and the numbers keep growing.

[2] Over 50% of corporations wishing to expand or relocate will not consider a state that does not have

"right to work" laws.

[3] It has been proven that living costs are lower in states with "right to work" laws.

[4] Can Canada continue to compete in a global economy with our present labour laws?

[5] Are labour unions stiffling our ability to compete with lower productivity levels and labour market rigidity?

Is the writing on the wall for Canada?

[maplesyrup]

All Canadian employees would benefit from being unionized.

That should be Canada s goal.

Where do you think all the labour benefits we currently enjoy in Canada came from?

From unions of course.

[Hjalmar]

maplesyrup

I don't buy your logic.. If labour unions are so great then why isn't 100% of the workforce unionized? You have a huge selling job ahead !!!

The labour union movement today, for all intents and purposes, is dead.

[jccc]

:angry: Unions, especially public sector, are a joke. There was a time & a place for them, which has long since past. Trust me, what we need now is an EMPLOYERS union. Employees nowadays can get away with murder & not too much can be done about. The days of firing employees on the spot are all but over. First there must be verbal warning, then 3-4 written warnings & on & on & on & then they can still try to sue. I say that Unions have ruined/are ruining our workforce & teaching our children that if they don't get their way they can bitch & complain & cry til they get their way.

This nonsense of unionized workers being more skilled & dedicated is the biggest laugh off them all. I'll pit any non union workers against some union jokers in their area of expertise, not only will the non union workers do a better job, but will do way more efficiently as well!!

As for the public sector unions, cross a civil servant with a union & you get the whiniest, laziest thing under the sun. Take for example last year, the Toronto Parks dept start their yearly whine when volunteers wanted to plant flowers & clean up the parks. The Union said "No way, thats taking work away from our employees" The union doesn't own the parks, the people of Toronto & Ontario & Canada own them.

Don't even get me started on the teachers.....

So to sum it up, Yes, any Canadian should be free to work any place they choose & not have to be involved with a Union, anything less would be an infringment of basic human rights.

In a perfect world, Mike Harris would be PM of Canada

Jim (Non union & proud of it)

[August1991]

The question is why do most most union members in Canada work in the public service? Indeed, all government employees are unionized and they probably account for 80% to 90% of unionized employees.

It's hard not to imagine that the government is a monopoly and public sector unions capture the monopoly profits. (Good example? The Post Office.) The evidence is that in much of Canada, there are queues to become public sector employees.

With that said, unions are strong in Quebec (like in France) and they play a role in what amounts to a corporatist society. Unions are a parallel power, not unlike the Catholic Church, and it would take a large social change to replace them with a different institution.

[falling leaf]

jccc

Quote

________

So to sum it up, Yes, any Canadian should be free to work any place they choose & not have to be involved with a Union, anything less would be an infringment of basic human rights.

____________________________

You are so right jccc , we have a right to say no to unions. Unions in the public sector have gone too far.

Hjalmar

__________

The" right to work laws "should be here in Canada so the non - union worker has a choice.

When will our government bring in the right to work laws to protect our right to work????

[Hjalmar]

Years ago the saying was "Look what labour unions are doing for us"

Today that saying is "Look what labour unions are doing to us"

Labour unions, with approximately 25% of the nations workforce, are taking more than their share of the economic pie. Consider what labour unions are doing to our country:

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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.

[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.

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

[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.

Oops... ran out of space!!!!!!!

[cgarrett]

i've mentioned in other posts about the right wings reliance on jealousy of unionized labor by non-unionized labor.

again, the labor movement is based on the idea that workers are not just slaves. that if money is being made using canadian labor and raw materials then workers get a piece of the action. so why is it that workers who participate in profit should not expect a fair share of this profit? why should it be concentrated to the "owners"? more importantly, why would a voting public vote to have this wealth concentrated? they do so because the are duped!

what people who support this union bashing seem to be ignorant of is that organized labor have made north america what it is today! they are the success of north america! before organized labor in north america we lived in a time when 90% of the continents wealth was in the hands of 5% of the people. this was a time of the Hearst's, the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilt's! have you seen the mansions that these families left behind! they were kings and queens! labor lived in complete poverty. there were no laws protecting labor. there was not minimum wage.

the rise of labor meant the rise of the middle class. more of the population had more money and were spending it. economies grew directly proportional to this money! economies have been dwindling proportionate to the disappearance of organized labor ever since! a process that has been taking place over the past thirty years as the right wing attempts to take more control of the nations wealth.

most importantly, working people who are union bashers have no concept of the idea that unionized labor produces a pressure to keep non-unionized labor wages higher! without unionized labor then wages would plummet for everybody!

my own theory on the success of this hysterical union bashing is that our grandfathers and great grandfathers who lived before organized labor are gone! they were our social memory.

just to let everyone know... i am not a member of a union. no, i am an incorporated individual! my accountant ensures that every year i pay less effective tax than the poorest of canadians!

[Hjalmar]

cgarrett

Your points are well taken and I agree with a lot of what you had to say. I myself am not speaking from the corporate level but rather that of the underdog non-union worker.

Let me clarify some of my points: I know, and so do others, that the non-union workers today have a lower standard of living than they did 30 or 40 years ago -- a direct result of labour unions powers. Without question, as you state, non-union workers wages today are higher than they would have been without the presence of labour unions. Now let me give you an example of what I'm saying.. Over a 10 year period union workers have had their pay increase from perhaps $10/hr to $15/hr. Over that same period non union workers have had their pay increase from $10/hr to $10.75/hr. So I cannot dispute what you say when you imply that non union workers have witnessed pay increases because of the presence of labour unions. Therein lies the reason for the ongoing lowered standard of living for approximately 75% of the workforce.

Now let's move to another area -- outsourcing of jobs because of uncompetitive wages in Canada, the USA and Western Europe. How do you propose to deal with that when labour unions have their blinders on and continue to demand higher wages and increased benefits? Labour unions in these high wage jurisdictions have no choice but to start lowering their wages. Concessions will be the by-word for all organized labour in the years ahead.

You raise the point about workers sharing in the profit. If they are prepared to invest some of their hard earned dollars in the company, then of course they will if the company is profitable. But when an owner invests perhaps a million dollars in a business venture why should anyone else share in the profit of that business if they have invested nothing and have nothing to lose? Are you aware how many small business ventures never get off the ground here in Canada because of the possible threat of unionization if the venture were labour intensive?

I believe the main beef against labour unions today is their insatiable greed and selfishness. If governments are unwilling to curb their powers then corporations themselves will find a way to deal with that. The problems today are mostly with the public sector unions and our governments seem unwilling to address this issue for fear of the electoral damage. The non-union workers in the country would not be paying the massive taxes they do if it weren't for labour union greed when you consider that 70% of provincial government expenditures go toward wages. This is the most urgent area to address.

Non union workers want to get back the standard of living they had 35 years ago. They fared better then than they do today. Everything is relevant .. you live in a high wage jurisdiction and your cost of living will be high.

[cgarrett]

hjalmar

an intelligent post! i'd like to respond...

a big piece of right wing rhetoric is the idea of 'globalization' and that 'canadian workers must compete on a global level'. have you ever wondered why that is? has any explanation been given as to why canadians must compete with people in india or china? how can canadians compete with people who can feed an entire extended family on a few dollars a day? the reality is that we don't need to compete...

my wife is japanese. let me tell you, getting to know japan was one of the biggest wake up calls ever! this country is the second most powerful economy in the world. and i would argue that it is the most powerful economy in the world seeing as the united states bases so much of its wealth on being the largest producer of oil in the world. in any case, japan is a country completely without natural resources! how do they do this?

japan is self sufficient! if they do not produce a good that they need then they build a factory to produce it! government, communities and private interest all work hand in hand in this process. and government does not participate by offering tax cuts to all corporations! if they need to explore certain markets then they offer tax relief to those markets only until those industries are established.

the japanese are interested in lower trade barriers to expand their markets but they are NOT interested in opening their own markets! japanese people are extremely proud of their industries and will buy japanese products before buying anything at all! work is not outsourced.. they compete in world markets because they have productive industry. they have productive industry because their work force is highly trained and highly paid!

when workers are highly paid then they have money to invest in capital markets... which further fuels the economy. workers who are paid minimum wage do not have money to invest.

most importantly, while the united states and britian entertain 2-3% foreign ownership, japan has almost no foreign ownership. the most critical of canadas industry and resources are foreign owned to the tune of 35%!! and conservatives in this country keep requesting that we sell more!? these foreign companies are like huge vacuum cleaners sucking wealth off shore...

[August1991]

the japanese are interested in lower trade barriers to expand their markets but they are NOT interested in opening their own markets! japanese people are extremely proud of their industries and will buy japanese products before buying anything at all! work is not outsourced.

And this explains perfectly why the Japanese economy has been a tremendous success for the past 10 years or so. NOT!

As developed countries go, Japan is in a mess. No one talks about the "Japanese Model" or "Japan Inc." anymore.

Why?

[MapleLeafMerc]

so why is it that workers who participate in profit should not expect a fair share of this profit?

Psst- cgarrett- it's called SALARY!

[MapleLeafMerc]

:angry: Unions, especially public sector, are a joke. There was a time & a place for them, which has long since past. Trust me, what we need now is an EMPLOYERS union. Employees nowadays can get away with murder & not too much can be done about. The days of firing employees on the spot are all but over. First there must be verbal warning, then 3-4 written warnings & on & on & on & then they can still try to sue. I say that Unions have ruined/are ruining our workforce & teaching our children that if they don't get their way they can bitch & complain & cry til they get their way.

This nonsense of unionized workers being more skilled & dedicated is the biggest laugh off them all. I'll pit any non union workers against some union jokers in their area of expertise, not only will the non union workers do a better job, but will do way more efficiently as well!!

As for the public sector unions, cross a civil servant with a union & you get the whiniest, laziest thing under the sun. Take for example last year, the Toronto Parks dept start their yearly whine when volunteers wanted to plant flowers & clean up  the parks. The Union said "No way, thats taking work away from our employees" The union doesn't  own the parks, the people of Toronto & Ontario & Canada own them.

Don't even get me started on the teachers.....

So to sum it up, Yes, any Canadian should be free to work any place they choose & not have to be involved with a Union, anything less would be an infringment of basic human rights.

In a perfect world, Mike Harris would be  PM of Canada

Jim (Non union & proud of it)

Thanks Jim!

I will never understand why the liberals here won't show us all how it's done by starting their own businesses.

[Hjalmar]

The following are the states in the USA that have a "right to work"law - Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.

One state has recently been added and I believe it is Oklahoma.

Note how many of these States are right at, or near, Canada's border.

[Michael Hardner]

Hjalmar:

Let me clarify some of my points: I know, and so do others, that the non-union workers today have a lower standard of living than they did 30 or 40 years ago -- a direct result of labour unions powers.

This is over-simplification. Why is it a direct result of labour unions powers ? There are many other forces at play here.

Without question, as you state, non-union workers wages today are higher than they would have been without the presence of labour unions. Now let me give you an example of what I'm saying.. Over a 10 year period union workers have had their pay increase from perhaps $10/hr to $15/hr. Over that same period non union workers have had their pay increase from $10/hr to $10.75/hr. So I cannot dispute what you say when you imply that non union workers have witnessed pay increases because of the presence of labour unions. Therein lies the reason for the ongoing lowered standard of living for approximately 75% of the workforce.

Are you saying that if there were no unions, over all wages would be higher ? If so, you haven't explained why, you just stated some data.

As has been stated above, organized labour created the middle class and created a power base that enabled workers to share general wealth and prosperity.

I think the problem we're seeing is that the average wage is going south, due to globalization, automation and other factors. Seeing as 2/3 of the economy is consumer spending, I think the government would do well to look for ways to increase wages.

What would happen to Ontario's economy if the autoworkers all went down to $15/hr salary ? Do we want a society where you need a university degree to earn more than $15/hr ? Who would benefit from such an arrangement ?

It seems to me that you're looking for the opposite to happen. If that's your goal, you don't need "right to work" legislation. The factors I mentioned are working towards your goal.

[cgarrett]

the fact of the matter is simple...

hard statistics show that over the past thirty years the following has been happening:

- the average north americans spending power is dropping

- wealth disparity is increasing with the middle class absolutely disappearing

- organized labor is decreasing (public and private) and currently at a record low.

this is in direct conflict with the first half of the 20th century where the opposite was true.

now, i suggest the union bashing cease but only because statistically it doesn't hold water that they are destroying our economy. could be some other liberal policies... but this one is not it.

[jccc]

organized labor is decreasing (public and private) and currently at a record low.

Why oh why do we think organized labour is at an all time low?? People are sick & tired of being held hostage at the hands of unions.

What would happen to Ontario's economy if the autoworkers all went down to $15/hr salary ?

Cars would be cheaper, the cost would reflect the savings on labour.

What really makes me nervous is the next generation of workers. Canada already has a serious shortage of tradespeople which I think is due to the fact that our children have learned that they will get what they want if they just have a temper tantrum, which they learned from the unions.

[Michael Hardner]

Why oh why do we think organized labour is at an all time low?? People are sick & tired of being held hostage at the hands of unions.

Are people happy with seeing their wages drop, though ?

Cars would be cheaper, the cost would reflect the savings on labour.

They wouldn't sell as many in Ontario, though. Making $30K a year, would force many families to go back to one car.

Remember Henry Ford.

What really makes me nervous is the next generation of workers. Canada already has a serious shortage of tradespeople which I think is due to the fact that our children have learned that they will get what they want if they just have a temper tantrum, which they learned from the unions.

I can't connect the dots here. Are you saying people don't want to enter the trades because they're not unionized ?

[August1991]

hard statistics show that over the past thirty years the following has been happening:

- the average north americans spending power is dropping

- wealth disparity is increasing with the middle class absolutely disappearing

What hard statistics? Income distribution statistics are fraught with the basic problem that most people, early in life, are poor. Later in life, they're rich. There is mobility during one's lifetime.

As to the spending power point, for everyone who sells, there is someone who buys.

[Hjalmar]

This is over-simplification. Why is it a direct result of labour unions powers ? There are many other forces at play here

Would you mind itemizing them for me please?

Are you saying that if there were no unions, over all wages would be higher ?

Not at all. I am saying that there wouldn't be the disparity in wages that exist today between union and non-union workers. This would benefit all non-union workers [approx 75% of the workforce] plus all the people that don't work such as retirees etc. which would bring the total close to 85%.

As has been stated above, organized labour created the middle class and created a power base that enabled workers to share general wealth and prosperity

Not disputing that at all.. that was yesterday. Let's talk about today. Labour unions have outlived their usefulness and today are creating more harm than good. They have become an albatross in our midst.

I think the problem we're seeing is that the average wage is going south, due to globalization, automation and other factors. Seeing as 2/3 of the economy is consumer spending, I think the government would do well to look for ways to increase wages.

On the one hand you admit that we are losing jobs through outsourcing because of the competitive forces of globalization. And then you suggest that wages be increased???? That's not going to happen. Labour unions will have no choice but to accept wage concessions for years to come or face unemployment.

? Do we want a society where you need a university degree to earn more than $15/hr ?

That's the way of the future. Not necessarily a university degree but pay in the future will be far more attuned to performance, productivity and value of the contribution to the employer than it has in the past where a body was a body [in union lingo] and everyone deserved the same rate of pay.

[Michael Hardner]

This is over-simplification. Why is it a direct result of labour unions powers ? There are many other forces at play here

Would you mind itemizing them for me please?

Well, there's automation, globalization, and social changes for example.

Not at all. I am saying that there wouldn't be the disparity in wages that exist today between union and non-union workers. This would benefit all non-union workers [approx 75% of the workforce] plus all the people that don't work such as retirees etc. which would bring the total close to 85%.

So if there were no unions there would be no disparity between union and non-union workers ?

I don't get it.

If there were no unions, for example if the CAW disappeared, then the average manufacturing wage would be lower.

Not disputing that at all.. that was yesterday. Let's talk about today. Labour unions have outlived their usefulness and today are creating more harm than good. They have become an albatross in our midst.

I think lower wages are a bigger problem for Canada than high labour costs right now.

On the one hand you admit that we are losing jobs through outsourcing because of the competitive forces of globalization. And then you suggest that wages be increased???? That's not going to happen. Labour unions will have no choice but to accept wage concessions for years to come or face unemployment.

I agree with what you say about labour unions, but wages are supposed to go UP with globalization as the "higher end" jobs replace the "lower end" jobs.

And this has not happened.

That's the way of the future. Not necessarily a university degree but pay in the future will be far more attuned to performance, productivity and value of the contribution to the employer than it has in the past where a body was a body [in union lingo] and everyone deserved the same rate of pay.

August1991 wrote that people are poorer when they're young, and later in life they become rich. Although many accept this to be part of nature, it wasn't always the case.

Elderly poverty was enough of a concern that Canada instituted the CPP. Time was that older workers were cast aside as they aged and became less productive.

It may be the way of the future, but as I said it will result in lower wages. This needs to be dealt with for the good of the economy, 2/3 of which is based on consumer spending.

[cgarrett]

' rich mobility' is a huge simplification shouted around by pundits for globalization/free trade and treating the wealthy like royalty (people who haven't made their money using the resources of a nation but were somehow entitled to it).

for example, canadian are mobile, but their wealth is not. the tax hit for taking ones wealth out of the country is extreme. read some books about it. there are a select few countries that we have international agreements with (sweden i think for example) where canadians can move their wealth tax free but these are few and far between and they are not tax havens. canadians can take up residence anywhere in the but their money making wealth remains in canada, being taxed before they can collect it from a corporate standpoint. they can collect personal income in another country but if they are not being taxed fairly in that country then are taxed by canada. why do think there is so much interest in off shore countries that do not have international agreements allowing transparency in ownership!

a story comes to mind about one of the seagrams family who wanted to take $900 million out of canada. of course, he was told that there would be a $400 million tax hit. he was told this a few times. but, he had friends who were liberal ministers and eventually he got to do it. some poor tax payer in ontario was still suing the government over this last i heard. of course, you and i wouldn't have so much pull.

so many of the earlier posts seem to imply that we need to accept slave wages! are all of the people posting here business owners? and like all short sighted business do they realize that if your market is canadian and you starve your market then you will have no business anyways? it truly doesn't make any sense.

the fact is that we are not barely an industrialized country. we have no industry. and globalization means that we will have no chance to create that industry. canada is a resource economy. with most of the rights to those resources owned by foreign entities. and the flow of wealth out of a country is always bad for its citizens. always! always! always! how many times does one have to say this. its like any business, one wants more wealth flowing in then flowing out.

now so much of conservative policy seems to say that we drop taxes for all wealthy and corporations and more will come here. well, how is that? if i was wealthy then i wouldn't come to canada if i could chose a tax haven instead. but it is convenient for the countries wealthy and the foreign corporations who are shoveling money out of the country. as i've said, some of these policies would be valuable if there wasn't these payoffs included. for example, have a tax rate that is lower for foreign wealthy and corporations for a period after arrival say.

fact is, the wealthy don't need a tax break as shown by the distribution wealth statistics. in this country, the middle class needs the tax break! and we need more people in the middle class!

[willy]

cgarrett

"for example, canadian are mobile, but their wealth is not. the tax hit for taking ones wealth out of the country is extreme. read some books about it. there are a select few countries that we have international agreements with (sweden i think for example) where canadians can move their wealth tax free but these are few and far between and they are not tax havens."

If you divest, one does have to pay a huge price. Markets however work on the assumption of growth and where should you put money then to grow. Where it is restricted and can’t move?

Canadian business people can grow their wealth outside the country. i.e. Paul Martin and the Barbados Steam Ships. If we are not competitive here not even the Prime Minister would invest new capital to grow a business in Canada.

Think about it.

[cgarrett]

ok, so why are the united states and japan good investment centers? with similar tax structures and regulations? because they have industry...

[Hjalmar]

So if there were no unions there would be no disparity between union and non-union workers ?

Goes without saying if there were no unions. But unions won't be disappearing. We need to find a way to eliminate, or at least reduce, the disparity between union and non union workers. Not fair at all that they should be earning twice as much as the non union worker and the non union worker has to pay the inflated prices for most goods and services [private sector] and taxes [public sector] which is a direct result of exorbitant wages and benefits for unionized workers. Is it fair that 25% of the workforce should have the power to harm society to this extent?

We need to reduce the power and leverage of labour unions plain and simple. Because of the militancy of labour unions here in Canada we need to reduce their numbers to a manageable 10 to 12% of the workforce. Right to work laws would bring this about over a period of time and would be much fairer for everybody.

I think lower wages are a bigger problem for Canada than high labour costs right now.

You have that backwards. The most successful countries in the future will have low taxation, low wages and high education.

I don't agree with your vision that union wage rates should be higher. You make reference to consumer spending. Isn't it far better that wage rates throughout the country be more equalized so that 100% of the population become consumers rather than increasing union wage rates further in order that 25% of the population can continue to be consumers? If union wages were brought down to the level of non union wages then it goes without saying that all prices and taxes would drop accordingly.

I'll address this further -- A lot of the products we purchase today are now manufactured in lower wage jurisdictions. If Canada is producing the same product paying union wages and sells the product at a modest profit this then becomes the market price for the product. This is what enables these corporations to max out their profit when the manufacturing takes place in lower wage jurisdictions. As you can see, if Canada discontinued the manufacture of these same products utilizing unionized labour, then the higher market price would disappear and that would benefit everybody in the country. I challenge anyone to refute this. In essence, corporations manufacturing offshore utilizing lower labour costs have become the biggest cheerleaders for organized labour in our country. I challenge anyone to refute that as well.