"right To Work" Laws In Canada

[jccc]

Well, I think we all are starting to get off topic, which was the right for any persons to work anywhere that they choose. Plain & simple, Canadians & the rest of the free world should be allowed to work anywhere, union or not. I know the steel erectors union is very stringent, where if you don't belong to the union, you don't work in that industry. To me that is dictatorship.

Any company, union or non, should be allowed to bid on any jobs, contracts, etc in Canada. City of Toronto won't allow non union companies to bid on construction jobs, as I heard many other counties,townships are the same. I feel this is very serious infringement of basic constitutional rights & basic human rights, not to mention, makes me want to puke!!

Like I said before, there was a time for unions, now it is time to control them

Jim

[Hjalmar]

jccc

Like I said before, there was a time for unions, now it is time to control them

Voluntary Unionism is the answer -- or "right to work" laws as it is known in the USA.

[BigGunner]

jccc

Like I said before, there was a time for unions, now it is time to control them

Voluntary Unionism is the answer -- or "right to work" laws as it is known in the USA.

When was the last time a union thug busted down your door and forced you to join a union at gun point? Oh, never?

'Right to Work' laws are a misnomer. That implies that upon walking through the front door of a shop, you are legally entitled to work there if you so choose...nevermind that you were fired from the last job for stealing, or that you are simply unqualified.

In reality, the shop has the right to offer you employment if you are qualified - or can be internally trained for the position.

Everyone who works in bargaining unit jobs should be members of the union. Opting out, or having the 'right' to opt out of the union is no different that being a citizen, and opting out of paying taxes because you philisophically disagree with 'government'...but fully expecting the services such as police protection, highway maintenece, to name a couple.

If a union has fought on your behalf to get you a decent wage and decent benifits, you should be obligated to join a union.

Remember, this is a democracy. If a majority of the workers vote for a union shop, then that is how it must be...unless you believe in minority rule.

Certainly, union 'greed' can't be any worse than corporate greed and criminal activity.

[playfullfellow]

BigGunner, you are right in the sense that no union members have busted down my door but there have been plenty other examples of strong arm tactics by unions. One example is truckers, who mostly are independant drivers, will not be allowed to deliver to a unionized work site unless they belong to a union. Why should an independant business owner who drives under contract for another business have to belong to a union? These drivers are no threat to the workers jobs at these sites but union rhetoric has taught them these indendant business people are. This makes no sense that a person has to belong to a union just so they can do their job. This totally infringes upon peoples right or privilige to make a living. Why, as an independant contractor can I not bid on jobs that are on unionized sites when I can offer a better price? Unions have their place in our work force but they have gained way too much power over the years.

[cgarrett]

i have a simple question to ponder... and its not that simple.

why is the idea of private ownership of resources or land, or capital acceptable...

but the idea of ownership of work is not acceptable (to those who believe that unions are not acceptable)?

something is for certain, everyone wants a share of this nations wealth. if they have to work for it then they will do that. but they will not work like slaves under slave conditions. and they will certainly not take a bullet for a country that is not giving them opportunity.

[BigGunner]

BigGunner, you are right in the sense that no union members have busted down my door but there have been plenty other examples of strong arm tactics by unions. One example is truckers, who mostly are independant drivers, will not be allowed to deliver to a unionized work site unless they belong to a union. Why should an independant business owner who drives under contract for another business have to belong to a union? These drivers are no threat to the workers jobs at these sites but union rhetoric has taught them these indendant business people are. This makes no sense that a person has to belong to a union just so they can do their job. This totally infringes upon peoples right or privilige to make a living. Why, as an independant contractor can I not bid on jobs that are on unionized sites when I can offer a better price? Unions have their place in our work force but they have gained way too much power over the years.

I'd need a specific example of that. I've never heard of your hypothetical situation before.

[Hjalmar]

BigGunner

I've never heard of your hypothetical situation before.

Never heard of it? .. How about the young man with a wife and 3 children from Vancouver. This man had just purchased a brand new tandem truck complete with box and hoist back in 1984 or 85. They were preparing the site for Expo 86. The man was saddled with hefty payments on his truck. He wheels onto the site with a load of gravel and is met by about 100 unionists who blocked his path front and rear -- he couldn't move. Then these thugs started to hammer on the hood and fender of his brand new truck. How would you feel? The story and pictures were on TV that evening.

This is typical labour union activity -- their way or the highway and it has to stop. Governments are too chicken to touch labour union laws so the people themselves need to start speaking out -- and they have.

[BigGunner]

BigGunner

I've never heard of your hypothetical situation before.

Never heard of it? .. How about the young man with a wife and 3 children from Vancouver. This man had just purchased a brand new tandem truck complete with box and hoist back in 1984 or 85. They were preparing the site for Expo 86. The man was saddled with hefty payments on his truck. He wheels onto the site with a load of gravel and is met by about 100 unionists who blocked his path front and rear -- he couldn't move. Then these thugs started to hammer on the hood and fender of his brand new truck. How would you feel? The story and pictures were on TV that evening.

This is typical labour union activity -- their way or the highway and it has to stop. Governments are too chicken to touch labour union laws so the people themselves need to start speaking out -- and they have.

What were the circumstances? Was he dragged into someone elses labour dispute - was there a strike at that particular site? Did Bill VanderZalms anti-union Socred gov't inflame the situation like they did on many other issues?

Perhaps you can provide a more modern example, instead of a 18-20 year old archived media clip?

If this was typical of union behaviour, where are the list of recent examples?

[playfullfellow]

BigGunner, I am not yanking your chain here, this happened to my father who is a trucker and it only happened 2 years ago at a mill in BC. There was no labour dispute going on at the time but all drivers had to show their union cards before they were allowed to enter the yard to unload. It also happened at a couple of other union yards in BC. It is not so bad now but he still has to produce his card every now and then just to avoid the hassle of being told he can not unload or load. This sort of stuff is not right in my mind.

[Hjalmar]

A horror storiy about labour unions

Here is a horror story from a lady in Cape Breton ...This

story was posted in another Canada-wide forum of mine.

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

Hi - I worked in a fish plant in Cape Breton for 12 years before it was closed..... We were members of the Canadian Auto Workers union...... Some one on here refered to them as the Corrupt Auto Workers..... I must say I agree.

A friend of mine was complaining about the methods when we were going through recent seasonal layoffs..... She was overheard saying to other workers that the union did not seem to be doing much for the workers in the plant..... That night someone slashed all 4 tires on her car right in her own driveway.

The next day the union steward came up to her and said- see, the union is doing things for you people and you better keep your mouth shut or you might have a lot more bad luck.

She is a single mother with 3 children.

Ever since then I have felt that the Auto Workers are nothing more than criminals that pray on defenceless workers that have no choice but to hand over there dues or get hurt or there houses burned.

Those auto workers sure are corrupt- I saw what they will do first hand and they should never be trusted- ever.

[Hjalmar]

Another story

Here's a recent posting from another lady in another forum of mine.

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

By the way, saw some woman on TV complaining that now she will only get $9.00/hr.... Imagine, you stand on a line for 8 hrs and all you have to do is shove a slab of meat in a bag (assembly line type work) no education required and you actually are complaining about $9.00/hr plus benefits.... What an ingrate, she doesn't know how lucky she is. (her union pay had been $17.00/hr)

Are you guys really saying that shoving a piece of meat in a bag is worth $17.00 per hour.... Get real!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hjalmar]

Interesting tidbit from an editorial in a local newspaper

"I have worked for both union and non-union jobs and here is what I have found.... When I worked for non-union companies, I worked for my boss.... I am, and have always been a hard, honest working employee.... I feel that if I produce and work harder than my fellow employees I should be rewarded for my hard work such

as a raise in pay, and my fellow employees felt the same way..... We also enjoyed the atmosphere and had a good time at work..... Then I went to work for a company that was union and I found that the atmosphere was totally different .... .Everyone seemed to work AGAINST the employer.... Nobody was given any recognition for doing a good job, because everyone was making the same wage.. Believe me when I say it doesn't do anything for a persons self-esteem to see a fellow employee doing little or nothing and making the same wage as yourself, as you are giving it your all..... Employees also seem to begrudge it when their employers make money.... Today people don't work for their bosses, they work for the unions, maybe that is where the major problems lie, there is no loyalty for the companies people work for anymore .... I also know that you don't need unions if you are an

honest, hard working employee who takes pride in their job, but then if you're not I guess you sort of need the union".

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

The message seems to be - If you're a slacker you need the union, and if you're a worker you don't.... If you were an employer, would you opt for the union model? ... I didn't think so!

[Hjalmar]

And this one from a young 25 year old gentleman from Edmonton

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

Perhaps my recent experience in Detroit, MI will illustrate the adverse effect the powerful union community in “Motown” has had on service levels..... Our company designs and manufactures industrial equipment; and a large part of our sales and marketing efforts involve exhibiting at major worldwide equipment tradeshows.... The difference in the service levels and professionalism of local tradeshow labor in unionized areas vs. “right –to – work” states is remarkable.... The service we receive

from unionized work forces is appalling.... Detroit happens to be the worst and therefore is the city I should use as an example.

When we describe the events that occur during tradeshow setup in Detroit, people think we are joking.... Our tradeshow booth is comprised of 2 components, our equipment, and a large display board featuring pictures of our product.... First lets start with the display board; the display, which normally takes me a ½ hour to setup on my own costs me 8 man hours of union labor billed at over $80.00 per hour.... First I need 2 carpenters to erect the

structure (should take 3 minutes, takes them 1 hour), and then I need 2 theatre & stage workers to erect the panels (should take 2 minutes, takes them 1 hour) then I need 2 A/V workers to ensure that my two little spotlights are pointed in the right direction… but wait, they can’t actually

plug in the spotlights, they will get fined, I need to hire two electricians to plug my spotlights into a power bar (I pay two guys $80 bucks each to plug a light bulb into a socket!)... In the meantime there are several thugs (they call them shop stewards) hanging around my booth watching every move ensuring that we don’t perform any “union” labor.... Last year an employee almost got kicked of the show floor for plugging his mouse into his

computer! ...That’s just the display board! ..You should see what we have to go through just to get our equipment hooked up!

We have complained to show management about the union, and they have informed us that it is the number one complaint of exhibitors, and it has gotten to the point where they are thinking of moving the entire show to another state, one that has enacted Right to Work” legislation.... That is unbelievable; the City of Detroit is about to lose a major tradeshow and all the associated

economic benefit BECAUSE of the union!

This is just one example of many!

Upon my return to Canada, feeling very frustrated with union labor, I found that while I was away the unionized workers of the international airport at which I had landed had gone on strike.... In this case they were on strike because the guy who gets paid $26.00 an hour to keep birds off the runway wanted a “Job for Life” clause in his contract…. I say, GET A LIFE.

[BigGunner]

Hjalmar, you hate unions. Plain and simple.

Thankyou for identifying these extreme cases...they are outrageous, some are illegal, and some are just plain stupid. But as with any advocate, they usually cite an extreme case in an attempt to villify an enemy or champion a cause, while deliberately mis-representing how it actually is...kinda like the freaks that screamed that if gay marriages were legalised, it would lead to the legalization of incent or beastility....pure crap, spoken by those that speak it well.

Most unionized workers are not thugs and criminals and are as diverse as everyone else. Some attend a church or temple, some have hobbies like fishing and hunting...in other words, they are the same as everyone else.

In my jobsite, an employee can be fired for underperforming, sleeping in late, insubordination, theft, rudeness - basically the very same 'just-causes' than anyone else is subject to that in non-union shops.

There are no jobs-for-life anymore...either in the union world, or the non-union world. The longevity of one's career largely depends on the management skills of the owners/operators and how they adapt to a changing world. This union worker wants to see his employer succeed...after all, my bosses success means more of a job-for-life than if i get greedy and demand everything.

Speaking of management skills, why don't you be as equally passionate about corporate criminals and thugs who bilk their customers, investors, taxpayers, and their employees for billions out of sheer greed?

Even I appreciate that most business owners are decent people and although are driven by the potential payoff, most acknowledge that their success is due to hard work by dedicated employees, and are treated with some amount of respect.

I am not prepared to paint all executives and managers with the same brush, so why do you attempt to do the same with union workers?

[playfullfellow]

I am not trying to paint all union members with the same brush. I understand that most members are my neighbours and friends. There are certainly examples of very militant members in the news all the time. As with most situations, the problems stem from the top and work their way down the pipe. I think most people are most tired of the strong arm tactics that the news people low to splatter on the evening news. They are also tired seeing people being harassed and pushed around at picket lines. I have no problem with unions as long as I am able to keep putting food on my table and a roof over my families heads. I do have a problem with not being able to do my job just because I am not a union member. I have no interest in taking jobs away from people if they are more qualified and efficient than I am. I have unionized people working around job sites all the time and there have been no issues. They make more money than I do but that is fine as long as they do a good job. I do take exception to not being able to my job though just because I do not belong to a union. I have paid my dues through hard work and taking risks. My employees enjoy the atmosphere we work in and they exactly how much is made on each job and what their share is. Most of the time, they make more than I do.

[August1991]

I am not trying to paint all union members with the same brush. I understand that most members are my neighbours and friends.

Union members belong to a legal cartel - as do farmers who belong to marketing boards. If we remain civilized for the next hundred years or so, I have no doubt that such cartels will not exist. They will disappear as the wing-tipped collar has and they will be viewed in the same way - a curious anachronism of old photos, or a curious subject of old Internet forum discussions.

Unions are what some describe as "old economy". Well said.

[Hjalmar]

There are distinct differences between public sector and private sector unions. These distinctions raise some questions:

1. Should public sector employees be allowed to unionize at all?

2. Should public sector employers be subjected to the

"closed union shop" rules that affect many private employers?

3. Should public sector employees be allowed the choice of

whether to join a union if they are employed by the government?

4. Should government employers be required to tie any union contracts for wages and benefits to market level wages and benefits for equivalent jobs in the private sector?

5. Is it rational that government employers and union

representatives negotiate a contract without the input of the taxpayers who pay for the contract?

6. What incentive is present for government employers to

negotiate a reasonable wage and benefit package when it's taxpayers' money that's footing the bill?

[Michael Hardner]

We have a problem in our economy with the decline of decent paying jobs. You, Haljamar, see the problem upside-down, and are trying to target those dwindling jobs for salary decrease.

The economy is 2/3 consumer-spending driven. What's the good of record productivity if there is no one to buy the goods ?

[August1991]

We have a problem in our economy with the decline of decent paying jobs.

What evidence do you have of that?

What's the good of record productivity if there is no one to buy the goods ?

That question makes no sense whatsoever.

Or, rather I'll answer your question with a simple solution. The Bank of Canada could print up several million $100 bills and mail several to everyone. Paul Martin could take credit for the "productivity rebate". Whaddya think of my idea? Dya think it would solve the problem?

[BigGunner]

There are distinct differences between public sector and private sector unions. These distinctions raise some questions:

1. Should public sector employees be allowed to unionize at all?

2. Should public sector employers be subjected to the

"closed union shop" rules that affect many private employers?

3. Should public sector employees be allowed the choice of

whether to join a union if they are employed by the government?

4. Should government employers be required to tie any union contracts for wages and benefits to market level wages and benefits for equivalent jobs in the private sector?

5. Is it rational that government employers and union

representatives negotiate a contract without the input of the taxpayers who pay for the contract?

6. What incentive is present for government employers to

negotiate a reasonable wage and benefit package when it's taxpayers' money that's footing the bill?

I'll answer your questions as best I can..

1...yes

Any group of employees have the right to form a union. That is guaranteed by the constitution - its called the freedom of association.

2...yes

In a free collective bargaining process, the parties have the right to collectively determine what 'shop' structure works best for them.

3...depends

Not all government jobs are union positions. Some are individual contact jobs for a specific timeframe and are well outside of any union arrangement. Otherwise, we already discussed this...if a person gets hired into a closed union-shop position, then they should be obligated to join the union and pay dues. After all, the union fought for the wages and benefits that the new employee is to recieve.

We all pay taxes, and just because some of us dislike some of the policies of the government, doesn't mean that we can opt out of paying taxes.

4...depends

You will find that many of the rank and file jobs are near market rates. But even if you were to determine *real* average rates and apply them to rank and file union employees, then you must equally apply them to excluded management positions that are often WELL beyond common sense or market rates. On top of that, to be fair, you would also need to apply a more reasonable ratio of excluded managers to union members that is more in line with private sector. I've discovered that government is top heavy with overpaid managers who do little, but public wrath is dropped on rank and file union members at the front line of public service.

5...yes

Do shareholders get to interfere with the managements side of collective bargaining? Do shoppers get to veto a union negotiations between grocery workers and management? NO. But both sides have the unwritten encouragement not to go overboard and sign a contract that raises the prices of things beyond the reach of customers. In government, that encouragement should come from the political masters that appoint the patronage appointees ("don't be signing any expensive contract that could cost me my seat" - read:angry voters)

Don't get mad at the union workers when it's been the politicians that have dropped the ball.

6...uhh...

Government employers are often the overpriced patronage appointees and political failures of a different age. With former Liberal and PC MP's and insiders negotiating contracts, they are often out of the loop in reality, not just labour negotiations.

I don't think taxpayers object to having rank and file civil servants getting a decent wage and benefit plan. Most, however are opposed to the generous contracts handed out to conservative and liberal friends and insiders and the rich MP pension plan that has no basis in reality. The pension plan that rank and file union members in the public service recieve is nothing to write home about.

[August1991]

BigGunner, you are saying the sky is green:

Any group of employees have the right to form a union. That is guaranteed by the constitution - its called the freedom of association.

No one denies the right of people to form an association. But a union is NOT an association. It is a cartel. Unions abridge the freedom to contract. The equivalent would if Wal-Mart forced you to buy ONLY from Wal-Mart. BTW, unions (and agricultural marketing boards) are explicitly excluded from Canada's competition legislation.

In a free collective bargaining process, the parties have the right to collectively determine what 'shop' structure works best for them.

You are saying that Wal-Mart and Zellers have the right to find what is the best way to force you to shop at one store or the other.

if a person gets hired into a closed union-shop position, then they should be obligated to join the union and pay dues. After all, the union fought for the wages and benefits

IOW, if I open up a corner store, Wal-Mart and Zellers can force me to be part of their cartel, with similar prices, and the same forced customer sharing scheme.

Do shareholders get to interfere with the managements side of collective bargaining? Do shoppers get to veto a union negotiations between grocery workers and management?

Yes and yes. Shareholders are free to sell their shares. And Wal-Mart and Zellers shoppers are free to choose another store.

(But hjalmar's impled suggestion is wrong too. Taxpayers "hire" politicians to negotiate on their behalf.)

All through this thread, indeed in other threads also, I see one constant error. It seems to me that posters confuse the fundamental differences between a voluntary relationship and an involuntary relationship.

Prior to marriage, a man and woman are in a voluntary relationship. After marriage, they have an involuntary relationship.

A citizen's relationship with the State is involuntary, and the relationship between an employer and a union is involuntary. Your relationship with a store is voluntary, as is your relationship with your employer - unless you have a peculiar contract more common in sports and Hollywood.

[Michael Hardner]

August1991:

Since Hjalmar isn't responding again, I'll take this up with you.

What evidence do you have of that?

Manufacturing and software jobs are going offshore. Is that debatable ? If so, let me know and I'll put some time into researching this.

What's the good of record productivity if there is no one to buy the goods ? 

That question makes no sense whatsoever.

Why not ? Reduced wages results in increased productivity doesn't it ?

Or, rather I'll answer your question with a simple solution. The Bank of Canada could print up several million $100 bills and mail several to everyone. Paul Martin could take credit for the "productivity rebate". Whaddya think of my idea? Dya think it would solve the problem?

I'm not an economist. But as far as I know, productivity is (roughly) the amount of output per worker. I don't see how a government payout such as you describe would do this.

[BigGunner]

The worker is not always to blame for the failings of the business or department of government.

In the anti-union rants displayed by some here, it would seem that union workers are big, bad, corrupt, and violent.

It is not the fault of the worker (union or not) for the bad decisions made by overpaid managers and political appointees.

If managers and beuraucrats are leaders in their work places, then lead by example. What kind of an example are you setting to rank and file workers when the boss increases his salary, buys a new company car (with all the options - that only he is allowed to drive), renovates his office with high end office furniture, then cries poverty while laying off workers or guilting them into reduced hours or wages?

From the rants by union haters in this forum, you'd think that unions are of the same ilk as Saddam Hussein or some other famous facist dictator.

The reality is that union workers are just like everyone else. They drive the same cars, own homes, have families, have dreams and plans for a future like everyone does.

Union haters are trying to invoke the politics of greed and jealousy and hate. 'oh look at the bad union man who gets $40/hour' (even though his rate is probably $19/h). By red-baiting union members, the union-hater tries to make everyone else jealous and angry at unions so they support so-called 'right-to-work' laws. Once passed, these laws will ensure that union rates will drop...but it also implies that everyone elses drops too.

True blue capitalists get really upset when people get angry at their success in business ownership. So why is it ok for union haters to make everyone upset at the successful worker who earns a middle class wage?

What have I done to you?

I earn my daily bread. And the taxes I pay go a long way to support the good causes like healthcare and education.

To some here, there will be no satisfaction until all unions are illegal, everyone works for minimum wage....except you. Well if you are the business owner that has to rely on some consumer spending to support your business and feed your family, you'd better hope that there are at least a few people out there with decent wages.

Stop the politics of greed and politics and realise that having a healthy supply of decent paying union jobs is good for the economy.

[falling leaf]

BigGunner

Union haters are trying to invoke the politics of greed and jealousy and hate. 'oh look at the bad union man who gets $40/hour' (even though his rate is probably $19/h). By red-baiting union members, the union-hater tries to make everyone else jealous and angry at unions so they support so-called 'right-to-work' laws. Once passed, these laws will ensure that union rates will drop...but it also implies that everyone elses drops too.

Give me a break!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" right to work "laws would be good for people who choose not to be part of the unions . I will never join a union because they have organized

crime at the top ... I would not want to be involved with such people. People who belong to unions close their eyes to this fact because it helps their pocketbook.

Labour unions code of "solidarity forever" is a code of silence. It's a code that encourages union corruption

[August1991]

I will never join a union because they have organized crime at the top

You've seen too many B&W Hollywood movies with Jimmy Cagney.

Reduced wages results in increased productivity doesn't it ?

No, increased productivity results sometimes in unemployment. Then higher incomes. (Think of what happened to typewriter manufacturing workers because of computers.)

The reality is that union workers are just like everyone else. They drive the same cars, own homes, have families, have dreams and plans for a future like everyone does.  Union haters are trying to invoke the politics of greed and jealousy and hate.

True blue capitalists get really upset when people get angry at their success in business ownership. So why is it ok for union haters to make everyone upset at the successful worker who earns a middle class wage?

The reality in Canada today is that the non-unionized Average Joe working in the private sector pays high taxes so that unionized public sector workers can have better benefits than the Average Joe.

Is this unfair? I don't know but I will point out several serious problems.

We will shortly hear alot about health policies, and maybe even education. (Martin has identified these issues as important.) In Canada, all health and education workers belong to public sector unions. It is impossible to reform health or education without the approval of union leaders (unless someone takes them on directly à la Thatcher).