"right To Work" Laws In Canada

[BigGunner]

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

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

People like me...my ilk...

What was I saying about union-hating rhetoric?

And, about that 'attitide'...who do you think pays more taxes? A non-union worker that earns $14/h or the union worker that earns $18/h?

You and your "ilk" are never going to be satisfied until unions are illegal...period. But that is never going to happen. The constitution protects the right of citizens free assembly, and freedom of association.

While I can appreciate some peoples argument that public sector employees should have no right to strike, those same advocates also argue that private sector workers should also be denied that same right...when do workers get to defend themselves against an abusive employer?

You hate unions...you are entitled to that viewpoint...but it doesn't make it right, nor does it make your argument valid.

[RB]

it is very disturbing to see such hostility towards unions

but i like the way unions are diminishing slowing, mind you it is still big but it continues to lose economic power, public influence, prestige and nowadays it is very much more on the defensive and under scrutiny

the industries that usually seek to be unionised are typical:

government-teachers, health, municipal workers, actors, pilots&flight attendants, textile, postal workers, telephone companies, paper/printing industry, steel industry, truck drivers, farmers, construction, carpenters, food-service industry.

there is a common theme within all these industry that is check! check! reality --- JOBS ARE UNSTABLE, look at it this way without some negiotiation for job security these industry would have the highest rate of unemployment, perhaps you'd like to contribute more to the EI funds

i don't particularly care for unions but also cannot deny their existence or be antagonistic, the instant disappearing act you wish for is not in a near future either .... there is an actual need for unions, how many millions in need have you quoted?

employers should see an advantage of capitalising on what is in their control. i believe if companies have good relations with their employees, set out fair rules and best practices by which employees can follow, and give them motivators to work with there is no need for employees to seek out and bring on new deal with unions

[jccc]

JOBS ARE UNSTABLE, look at it this way without some negiotiation for job security these industry would have the highest rate of unemployment, perhaps you'd like to contribute more to the EI funds

The job security issue is the biggest joke of them all. There is no such thing as "job security" no matter what industry is. If their were such a thing as job security, it should be up to the employee to perform well enough to secure his/her job themselves. Employers do not control the markets & if a corp has to lay off employees, well.... thats life

when do workers get to defend themselves against an abusive employer?

I would like some actual modern day examples of who some of these abusive employers are....please enlighten me....because I know of many,many abusive employees....some that steal from employers, have a "don't give a *&^#" attitude, lazy, drink, use drugs, shall I continue????? Try and fire these people??....good luck!! I said this earlier in this thread that nowadays there needs to be a "employERS union" that represents the rights of employers for getting constantly screwed over by bad employees & there is a lot more of that than there is employees getting screwed by their employer!!!

Jim

[Hjalmar]

RB

who do you think pays more taxes? A non-union worker that earns $14/h or the union worker that earns $18/h?

And who ends up with the larger net? But are you too embarassed to quote figures that more closely reflect the true picture.. namely, non-union workers earning $10.00/hr and the union worker closer to $20.00/hr and sometimes much higher.

In regards to the job security issue can you name me one employer that is in business for the sole purpose of creating jobs? Jobs are only stable if the corporation is profitable. Labour unions have more to do with corporations going under than any other factor. That's why you're seeing such massive outsourcing today. Labour unions have become the largest bane in our society today and are destroying our country's potential by driving jobs out of the country.

[RB]

companies need to be up-to-date with benchmarked wages when bargaining, there are all kinds of surveys out and techniques use to gauge wages. bargaining is just what it says bargaining, a wage difference of $10 vs $20 for comparable work performed is bad enough.. no union make irrational demand but they can try a trick or three, but someone has to do their homework

if you say to me this is a step range from $10-$20 well then thats is just the way it works

In regards to the job security issue can you name me one employer that is in business for the sole purpose of creating jobs?

Yes, try your good government - your biggest empoyer - didn't they add a few more ministries, well they are into job creation and keep expanding exponentially

here is what i meant when i mentioned job security

when bargaining economic variability of companies should be into account, smart companies will run with concession bargaining idea

-in this case job security means more than just holding on to a permanent job or but also not proceeding with layoffs

- it could mean no-layoff clause in return for concessions over work rules

- it could mean redeployment to lesser jobs and lower wages to lessen unemployment at some later date

- it could mean management takes a pay cut along with production workers

- it could mean implicit job security that guarantees plant investments

- it could mean re-hiring laid-off employees first

- it could mean formal arrangement to include union in business decisions

- it could mean linking unions to companies goals and performance

well it could mean a lot of things, but get this

concessions can be asked for and extracted from unions though are not necessary to the continued operation or the detriment of companies

what i am suggesting is that management and union cooperation at every level of the organization could very well be the new trend and make companies competitive with companies domestically and globally

its just too bad that you are speaking of union and destruction in the same context

[cgarrett]

again... so why is it that say a foreign owned oil company extracting canadian wealth should not have to pay canadians a good wage? a cut of the nations wealth? while the corporation is paying no taxes?

are the only people who argue against unions simply all business owners? they must be... because canadians who do not want to share in the wealth of canada who work for a living are simply stupid.

[willy]

Oil companies do pay taxes. Lots of them, municipal, provincial and federal taxes.

They also pay very good wages. A rigger in Alberta can expect to make close to $100 000.00 a year. No education, just a hard working job.

Also check the hidden environmental taxes. Every time the government signs agreements like Kyoto companies invest millions to comply. This money does not generate one cent in revenue. The pit is not bottomless.

Why attack those that pay for health care, education, defense, add scam (national unity), and our justice system. With out corporations we would not have a social engine to provide resources for the social good.

[Hugo]

I think I'll finally offer my opinion on this matter.

As a staunch capitalist, I support trade unions wholeheartedly. They are a natural product of the capitalist system and an essential component of it. Socialist economies do not generate trade unions, capitalist ones do. This is a product of economic freedom. I am a capitalist because capitalism gets the most freedom and the best standard of living for the average citizen, and unions are a way of maximising that, so I support them.

In a free market, individuals will band together for profit, forming an organisation within the larger system - the economy - realising that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This is the definition of a corporation. It's also the definition of a trade union. The union is a group of individuals (employees) who have formed a union to get more profit (pay, benefits, rights) within the larger system (the corporation).

As BigGunner has said, in a free market with freedom of association you will get unions. It is a natural product of the capitalist system, as capitalism encourages co-operation as much as, if not more than, competition and capitalism produces a flourishing of co-operative enterprises of all kinds like no other economic system can do. You cannot remove this.

A lot of people in this thread have expressed anger at unions, but that anger seems very mis-directed. Let's look at it.

First, people are envious that union employees can get paid more. That's not necessarily true, for a start. I have a friend who is a foreman in a unionised company, he is a union member, and he makes about 2/3 of my salary. I'm not unionised but in a similar line of work.

Also, even if we assume that unionised employees get paid more, so what? This is the basic tenet of capitalism. The money is out there, go and get it! It's a very left-wing idea to see someone else having more and demand that it be taken away from them and given to you "just because", and I find it very strange that some of the right-wingers on this board have taken such a Marxist stance on this issue. If you see union employees getting paid more, go join a union or start your own! If you see Bill Gates getting richer and richer, don't whine, go make something better and beat him at his own game! And if you can't, doesn't that say something about why you are getting less?

Secondly, people are angry that unions sometimes strike. That is their right. But the anger is missplaced. Let's say GM employees go on strike tomorrow. What difference does this make to the consumer? None! You can still buy or service a car. You can still buy or service a GM, in fact. Just because the employees are on strike doesn't mean there aren't plenty of GMs in the dealerships and plenty of mechanics to take care of them. The only people who lose are the strikers (pay) and the employers (work), so it's in the interests of both to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible. That is how it is supposed to work.

Now, last year the Toronto garbage collectors went on strike. The city stank for weeks, trash piled up on the streets, tourists stayed away, and so forth. Big problem. Say the teacher's union goes on strike again. Kids don't get taught. There are no other options, unlike the GM case. Is this because of unions? No. It's because of state-run business. The real problem here is not unions, it's government enterprise and public-sector economics that cause the breakdown. That's what needs to be addressed.

[August1991]

In a free market, individuals will band together for profit, forming an organisation within the larger system - the economy - realising that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This is the definition of a corporation. It's also the definition of a trade union.

That's nonsense. A corporation is not a cartel. A union is one. I can choose to deal with one corporation or another. The whole point of a union is to be the only source of supply. Corporations and unions are diametrically opposed in nature.

Adam Smith had it right:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

Fortunately, cartels don't last forever. They fall apart either because members cheat on one another or their exceptional profits invite competitors.

Air Canada is a case in point. Its unionized workers have priced Air Canada out of the market. It remains only to be seen whether their bluff will pay off. Will the federal government use our credit cards to pony up and save the "national flag carrier"?

Canada has some 13 million workers in the private sector of which about 20% are unionized and some 3 million workers in the public sector of which about 76% are unionized. In effect, unions benefit from the monopoly power of the state. Hugo draws a distinction here; I don't except to note that we can turf a government out - we are stuck with the public sector union leaders.

Another case in point? Reform of Canada's education and health systems is a practical impossibility because of public sector unions.

[Hugo]

Air Canada is a case in point. Its unionized workers have priced Air Canada out of the market.

The Big Six airlines - American, United, Delta, Northwest and US - are all unionised. In fact, I'd be amazed if you can find me a single major airline that doesn't have a union. The union is not the reason why Air Canada is in trouble.

The whole point of a union is to be the only source of supply. Corporations and unions are diametrically opposed in nature.

No, they are not. The union must also be a team player, they cannot make unreasonable demands because if they cause the parent company to go bankrupt, everyone becomes unemployed and everybody loses, including the union. The union and the corporation are not opposed, they are partners, but as in all partnerships the parties have a right to ask for a different share ratio.

[Hjalmar]

RB

its just too bad that you are speaking of union and destruction in the same context

I say it the way I see it. As Hugo has pointed out, trade unions are a natural product of the capitalist system. This begs the question: Why are labour unions, a byproduct of the capitalist system, supporting advocates of the socialistic system? Socialism is more closely aligned with communism than capitalism. A socialist is a clone of the communist, only not quite as mature.

Labour unions today have outlived their usefulness. I say that because they refuse to adjust to our changing world. In Canada today they have become too strong and overpowering -- almost to the point where our governments have become relegated to the second level of power. Touching labour union laws has become a taboo subject for governments because of the electoral consequences.

Labour unions will always be with us but they need to be kept in check. That means bringing their numbers down from the present 25% here in Canada to a manageable level of perhaps 12%. Labour unions exercise no economic smarts and this is now destroying our country. Labour union leaders are going to have to veer into a totally different direction which would be more mindful of the well being of the corporations, governments and the good of our country as a whole instead of focussing only on their own selfish greed.

[August1991]

The Big Six airlines - American, United, Delta, Northwest and US - are all unionised.

What about PanAm, TWA, Eastern? And why, do you think, the US airlines are unionised?

Air Canada is almost a monopoly in Canada. Different story, from the unions' perspective.

The union must also be a team player, they cannot make unreasonable demands because if they cause the parent company to go bankrupt, everyone becomes unemployed and everybody loses, including the union.

All cartels are team players in that sense. They obviously don't want to lose their monopoly position.

Union negotiations are high-stakes poker though, as we are witnessing with Air Canada and in Newfoundland now. Market relations are miles from this kind of brinksmanship.

PS. I feel on the cusp of another "cantankerous, protracted Hugo debate".

[Hugo]

What about PanAm, TWA, Eastern?

Being unionised does not guarantee either success or bankruptcy. All major airlines are unionised (including the ones you mentioned). Some went under. Some did not. It's the same with non-unionised businesses.

Air Canada is almost a monopoly in Canada.

For internal flights maybe, but then, that means you have answered your own question - and the answer was not "unions bad."

Adam Smith had it right

Smith was discussing guilds, not unions, which are different. Unions compete with other unions in other companies. They have to help their host company be successful, or they will not succeed either.

I feel on the cusp of another "cantankerous, protracted Hugo debate".

Then don't bother, and go wherever you feel that insults are welcome, because they are not here.

[cgarrett]

Socialism is more closely aligned with communism than capitalism. A socialist is a clone of the communist, only not quite as mature.

remarks like this show the ignorance of those following the right wing agenda! in fact, the right wing agenda has little to do with capitalism and everything to do with the avoidance of democracy! globalization strictly is the implementation of trade rules that penalize a country if they democratically decide that say they want to protect a national industry, or that some product is unsafe for their consumption. its corporate feudalism. corporations that are controlled by a few.

as i mentioned in another post. america is closer to communist china than say a socialist european country. what socialism has in common with china is national health care, transportation and education. it can be argued that a democratic system where there are two choices chosen by some elite class is not much different from one in which there is only one choice. the united states has rich monopolies (take oil as a huge example) just like chinas state run monopolies.

as soon as one starts to talk about idealologies then everything breaks down because the world is far to complex for such sound bites.

[Hjalmar]

cgarrett

as i mentioned in another post. america is closer to communist china than say a socialist european country.

If you're referring to protectionism, I agree with you.

[August1991]

Sorry Hugo, I'll pick one point for now:

Air Canada is almost a monopoly in Canada.

For internal flights maybe, but then, that means you have answered your own question - and the answer was not "unions bad."

Hugo, you don't get it. Monopolies are not bad for moral reasons (eg. they make high profits). Monopolies are bad because they raise prices above a competitive market price and many buyers can't buy their services. This leads to bad decisions, waste and a poorer country. Smart monopolies would never raise their prices so high that they lose too many customers or invite a competitor to jump into the market.

In Air Canada's case, it is not management or shareholders who control this monopoly. It is the unions. And they've pretty much botched the job in large part because they are convinced that the federal government will come in and save our "national flag carrier". That's a monopoly, controlled by a union, that has access to its customers' credit cards.

This explains why 76% of public employees are uinionised but only 20% of private sector employees.

Unions in the private sector (without access to credit cards)?

In general, I prefer anonymous market relations to the brinksmanship common in family disputes. In other words, I prefer the quietude of cooperation to the drama of competition.

In theory, unions and private employers could arrive at the same settlement as a free labour market without unions. Well in theory, government bureaucrats could organise the same economy as a free market does.

And I thought you were the one against concentrating power.

BTW, this is not a minor issue in Canada. The Charest passed controversial legislation concerning the right to privatise or contract out certain tasks and in effect hire non-union employees. The left-wing slang for this "out-sourcing" - which now applies also to hiring cheap foreigners.

[August1991]

CG:

america is closer to communist china than say a socialist european country.

That's nonsense. You are simply showing your anti-Americanism. (Admit it, you don't like the US and Americans.) All your arguments stem from this basic premise. Until you grow out of your anti-American bias, any kind of intelligent debate is probably a waste of time. And unfortunately for you, you'll miss out on a much richer discussion.

[RB]

Hjalmar

only because it is rather late in the night now i decided to leave something to ponder from a US lawyer, Clarence Darrow

"with all their faults, trade-unions have done more for humanity than any other organization of men that ever existed.

they have done more for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the race, for the developing of character in man, than any other association of men"

[Hjalmar]

RB

"with all their faults, trade-unions have done more for humanity than any other organization of men that ever existed.

I have always maintained that labour unions at one time served a useful purpose. Clarence Darrow was born in 1864 and died in 1938. Do you honestly think he would make the same statement today? A competent lawyer in this day and age would never make that statement unless he was connected to the labour union itself or the mafia.

[playfullfellow]

Just playing a bit of catch up here people and saw the Air Canada portion of the thread. I am not a big fan of unions but I doubt that Unions are completely to blame for the state of Air Canada's problems. The majority of those probs stem from really poor choices made by management. The unions could have helped the situation by being more coorportive. But then again, maybe they saw the writting on the wall and figured they would milk the cow for all it was worth before everything fell apart. I guess they will have to rely on those huge pension packages that they negotiated for over the years, oh yeah, I guess they might be gone too from the looks of things. Westjet seems to have no problems with their employees and as I recall, Westjet is non-union. So what seems better, to be non-union and make a little less money with a company that is making more and staying in business or to be union, make more money but not know whether your job is still there next week? No work sure wont pay my bills.

[RB]

Hhalimar

Well if people didn’t dislike the union so much there would never be an emergence of good lawyers

a competent lawyer is one that can argue from both sides of the mouth, er well they are not overly honest otherwise they might not be able to decipher when they are up to other people’s trickery.

but Hjalimar what is interesting is from dayton and the union view Darwinism exists then as it exist now, and it is the same Darwinism that is also existing in the capitalistic framework you wish to promote.

you see what you choose to see, but i assure you that you cannot resolve some conflicts by choosing conflicts or denial or descrimation .. something has got to give ... and i am in favor of cooperation with management and an empowered union - you just can't decidely reject unions in the bigger scope when planning - otherwise you end up losing everytime

MYTHS ABOUT UNION

From IWA Canada Local 2171 website

MYTH: "Unions are too big and powerful."

FACT: Unions consist of everyday working people who elect representatives-democratically. The job of these representatives is to get the best deal possible for their members. Contrary to popular belief, most Canadian unions are actually quite small and have limited resources. 

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

MYTH: "Unions always want to strike."

FACT: No union wants to strike. Strikes mean that members lose their income. But sometimes a sacrifice is necessary in order to achieve growth. Strike votes occur only when the company and union representatives can't reach an agreement. Fortunately, over 97% of contract negotiations are settled without a strike. Strikes are the exception, not the rule. 

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

MYTH: "Unions are only interested in money."

FACT: Unions bargain for much more than wages. They fight to eliminate sweat shops, reduce the number of working hours, and improve health and safety conditions.

Unions also fight to preserve and enhance social programs like health care, education and pensions. Job security and retraining are also high on the list of union priorities. 

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

MYTH: "Unions always make unreasonable demands."

FACT: To some elements of our society, particularly the corporate world, any demand is too much.

Contract negotiations involve a process where unions base their demands on the needs of the membership. These needs are determined by consulting the members and studying the ability of the employer to pay. Negotiations are like any other part of life - we always try to get the best deal we can.

The strength of unions has lifted millions of Canadians out of poverty by giving them the purchasing power which drives our economy. 

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

MYTH: "Unions force people to join and pay dues."

FACT: Unions are truly democratic in nature. A union is formed in a workplace when a majority of workers voluntarily agree to sign union membership cards. A secret ballot may follow, which is conducted by the government.

People who do not want to join a union are not forced to sign cards but if the majority of their fellow workers join a union, they must respect the wishes of the majority. That's democracy.

If everyone benefits from a union contract, everyone should pay dues. Just as we pay taxes for services provided by the police, ambulances, etc. union dues require financial support to provide services and representation to their members. 

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

MYTH: "Unions have outlived their usefulness."

FACT: How many times have you heard that unions were good at one time, but aren't needed anymore? The Toronto Globe and Mail said the same thing in 1886. Unions were the first to negotiate pension plans, medical coverage, disability protection, equal pay for equal work, and safety programs. Unions provided protection against discrimination and other unfair labour practices.

The belief that workers no longer require protection or representation indicates that unfair labour practices no longer exist. Yet sweat shops still exist in Canada. Discrimination still exists in Canada. Today, as an integral part of our society, unions lead the way in demanding social progress, justice and protecting gains already made. 

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

MYTH: "Unions protect people who are lazy and should be fired."

FACT: No agreement that a union negotiates can require an employer to keep a worker who is incompetent or lazy. The union can't protect a worker who is absent or is always late for work.

Unions ensure that dismissals are done for just cause only and not because of personality clashes between a worker and his/her employee. A union contract is good job insurance for good employees. 

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

MYTH: "Unions care only about themselves."

FACT: Did you know that many of the rights and benefits you enjoy today were first fought for and won by union members?

Unions have fought for civil rights, improved health care, better public education, the minimum wage, pensions, and good working conditions (including the 40 hour work week). Unions set the standards that the Canadian Labour Code is built on today. 

i am sure you can also do the search on myths about union in finances

MORE MYTHS ABOUT UNIONS

[falling leaf]

Hjalmar

I agree with you 100% about a connection between labour unions and organized crime....

I just read a report on Organized Crime and Union labour sent to the White house by US goverment.

The picture that it presents is very frightening. At least 4 international unions are completely dominated by men who either have strong ties to or are members of the organized crime syndicate. A majority of the locals are in most of the major cities of the United States. These locals belong to International Brotherhood of Teamsters ,Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union , Labourers International Union of North America and International Longshoreman's Association unions ,are completely dominated by organized crime. The officials of these unions are firmly entrenched; there is little hope of removing them by a free election process. Convictions for misconduct have been sparse and when one corrupt official is removed another soon takes his place. The result has been a complete domination of certain industries by these hoodlums. Management personnel in the companies who must deal with these hoodlums have despaired at getting help from law enforcement authorities. They pay the price of labour peace so that they may survive. Then the cost is passed on to the consumer.

Do you think our unions in Canada are connected to the ones in the USA ?

Does that mean our hotel industry , longshoremen and teamsters belong to the same international unions in Canada?

I wonder if this is a threat to free competition in our economy?

[Hugo]

In Air Canada's case, it is not management or shareholders who control this monopoly.

Firstly, you seem to be making the error of pinning your argument on a single example. This is the same as denouncing all corporations on the basis of Enron - the example suits your argument, but the bulk of evidence that you have ignored does not fit your theory at all.

Secondly, you are not arguing for your opinion, you are, in fact, arguing for mine. You allege that it is the union of Air Canada that has caused the business to fail, and that unions in general cause this problem. This cannot be true by virtue of the thousands of unionised corporations throughout the world successfully doing business. A good theory must fit the empirical evidence, and yours does not, therefore, your theory is wrong.

I am arguing that state involvement in industry is the real problem, not unionisation. Your example of Air Canada supports this. Why is Air Canada so badly run and their union so greedy? Easy: they have learnt that the government has a limitless bag of (taxpayer) cash to bail them out in any circumstance. They have no need to be efficient, no need to become more competitive. The union has no need to be moderate to protect the host company, because they know that whatever trouble they get the host company into, the government will bail them out of. This is the problem with Air Canada.

[jccc]

From IWA Canada Local 2171 website

QUOTE 

MYTH: "Unions are too big and powerful."

FACT: Unions consist of everyday working people who elect representatives-democratically. The job of these representatives is to get the best deal possible for their members. Contrary to popular belief, most Canadian unions are actually quite small and have limited resources. 

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

MYTH: "Unions always want to strike."

FACT: No union wants to strike. Strikes mean that members lose their income. But sometimes a sacrifice is necessary in order to achieve growth. Strike votes occur only when the company and union representatives can't reach an agreement. Fortunately, over 97% of contract negotiations are settled without a strike. Strikes are the exception, not the rule. 

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

MYTH: "Unions are only interested in money."

FACT: Unions bargain for much more than wages. They fight to eliminate sweat shops, reduce the number of working hours, and improve health and safety conditions.

Unions also fight to preserve and enhance social programs like health care, education and pensions. Job security and retraining are also high on the list of union priorities. 

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

MYTH: "Unions always make unreasonable demands."

FACT: To some elements of our society, particularly the corporate world, any demand is too much.

Contract negotiations involve a process where unions base their demands on the needs of the membership. These needs are determined by consulting the members and studying the ability of the employer to pay. Negotiations are like any other part of life - we always try to get the best deal we can.

The strength of unions has lifted millions of Canadians out of poverty by giving them the purchasing power which drives our economy. 

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

MYTH: "Unions force people to join and pay dues."

FACT: Unions are truly democratic in nature. A union is formed in a workplace when a majority of workers voluntarily agree to sign union membership cards. A secret ballot may follow, which is conducted by the government.

People who do not want to join a union are not forced to sign cards but if the majority of their fellow workers join a union, they must respect the wishes of the majority. That's democracy.

If everyone benefits from a union contract, everyone should pay dues. Just as we pay taxes for services provided by the police, ambulances, etc. union dues require financial support to provide services and representation to their members. 

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

MYTH: "Unions have outlived their usefulness."

FACT: How many times have you heard that unions were good at one time, but aren't needed anymore? The Toronto Globe and Mail said the same thing in 1886. Unions were the first to negotiate pension plans, medical coverage, disability protection, equal pay for equal work, and safety programs. Unions provided protection against discrimination and other unfair labour practices.

The belief that workers no longer require protection or representation indicates that unfair labour practices no longer exist. Yet sweat shops still exist in Canada. Discrimination still exists in Canada. Today, as an integral part of our society, unions lead the way in demanding social progress, justice and protecting gains already made. 

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

MYTH: "Unions protect people who are lazy and should be fired."

FACT: No agreement that a union negotiates can require an employer to keep a worker who is incompetent or lazy. The union can't protect a worker who is absent or is always late for work.

Unions ensure that dismissals are done for just cause only and not because of personality clashes between a worker and his/her employee. A union contract is good job insurance for good employees. 

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

MYTH: "Unions care only about themselves."

FACT: Did you know that many of the rights and benefits you enjoy today were first fought for and won by union members?

Unions have fought for civil rights, improved health care, better public education, the minimum wage, pensions, and good working conditions (including the 40 hour work week). Unions set the standards that the Canadian Labour Code is built on today.

This wouldn't be considered a "biased" opinion would it......?

Jim

[RB]

JCCC

i did'nt this so - we could plug most of those comments into any aggreement or laws

alas, but no cando, i was going to try put this into a matrix format for easy reading but try matching the numbers

Why the Union got started

1) Divorce of labour and capital

2) Expansion of competitive markets

3) Consciousness of job insecurity

4) Unified group psychology

5) Insecurity caused by machines

6) Quest for Short-Term gains

7) Reduce frustrations and provide greater security

8) Emergence of industrial systems

9) Reaction to management strategic choice

Goal of union

1) Establish national min. standard

2) To take labor out of competition

3) To ensure worker control of scarce jobs

4) Relation of unions & capitalism

5) Union-management cooperation

6) Overthrow of capitalism

7) Soften the impact of industrialization on the worker

9) No longer unilaterally determined by unions, it becomes a response to mgmt. Strategic choice

Why workers join unions

1) Improve wage and working conditions

2) Protect wages and conditions

3) To gain systematic access to scarce jobs

4) Involve individuals in group consciousness

5) Quest for security

6) Short-term gains

7) To achieve standards of successful living

8) For labor protest against industrialization

9) As a reaction to the impact of strategic choices made by mgmt; strategic choices that attempt to have a positive impact on the workplace will lessen the need for unions (this is not occuring in canada yet unlike the US)

if you would like to lessen unions in canada the major criticism is that canadian managers have opt for and operates within the collective bargaining system in reaction to market forces

my next criticism is can you face up to canadian realities or not:

1) that we have a stronger unions and

2) a pervasive legal system to work with

3) and we need to make some strategic choices

.... more criticism for employers.

employers utlimate goals should be that labor movements is not determine by labor but by the actions of themselves.

employers are the ones that contributes to rise of unions and employers can also control the growth of unions

result

unions can only gain members if employers failed in its stategic choice

the choice

strategic choices that attempt to have a positive impact on the workplace will lessen the need for unions

thats all