Unions in Canada

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There's a difference between associating freely and engaging in walkouts.

I'm all for not criminalizing the existance of unions. I'd just propose that they not be legally recognized in the law. This would mean that, legally, a gathering of union members would be equal to any loose gathering of people.

You ask that labour laws be reversed and that the rights of the worker be eliminated. I don't see that as very beneficial to citizens at all.

[Machjo]

You ask that labour laws be reversed and that the rights of the worker be eliminated. I don't see that as very beneficial to citizens at all.

What labour laws specifically?

I'd be in favour of giving workers voting rights on the board of directors of companies, much as is the case in workers' co-ops, as that would promote unity between labour and management, all working together to share ideas to overcome common challenges. That's a far cry from the confrontational approach labour unions now use, whereby they intimidate workers to join them and pay their dues or face the consequences, whereby the only way they know of dealing with management is with threatening strikes, etc.

I'm not necessarily saying management are always angels either, but simply that confrontation can only get us so far.

In sone European countries, by the way, they have used systems similar to what I'm proposing above, whereby workers have more say in the company, thus marginalizing essentially making redundant the power of the union leaders.

[Machjo]

Another point to make, not all labour laws do as intended. Let's look at minimum wage. Remember, higher educaiton is not free. A person with debt, bad credit, other responsibilities, or other obstacles cannot get a higher education, yet without a higher education, he may not be worth minimum wage in the eyes of employers, and so we are essentially pricing the most vulnerable members of society out of the labour market. How kind of our government to do that!

Other examples of such well intentioned fiascos include the rent ceilings in Toronto some years back. Teneants were happy at first, but since there was no more profit to be made in the rental industry, this killed the incentive to build more apartment buildings while the city's populaiton was booming. Before long, housing shortages became apparent, tenants tried to bribe their way into the few apratments available, or rentors found loopholes in the bi-law such as 'key fees', etc.

In the end, whom did the rent ceilings hurt the most? The very people they were intended to help the most. And when the city had no choice but to finally raise the rental ceilings gragually, prices naturally rose too. This resulted in a construction boom and now I believe prices have stabilized again. I doubt the city will repeat that mistake again.

If you're thinking that NDP-style socialism would be a good thing, I fully disagree. It's too anti-capitalist and confrontational towards the market, not to mention that it's just there to help its main special interest group, the unions.

I tend to be mroe capitalistic myself, but if I had to go for a more social democratic candidate, I'd likely be looking for something more akin to the Swedish social democrats, not the Canadian NDP. The Swedish social democratic model, though high-tax-based like any social democratic system, still shows willingness to work with the market, not against the market. They even have a school voucher system with 10% of the population attending private schools! They are by no means friendly towards labour unions. In fact, if anything, they've made labour unions redundant by giving workers more say in company operations, much like in Germany.

You'll find too that the Swedish model is more of a no frills no gimmicks kind of socialism focussing on the basics, quality universal compulsory education and universal access to higher educaiton, quality health care, etc., unlike the NDP model that spends more on gimmicks like gay pride parades or other artsy fartsy stuff.

This, by the way, might be why social democracy succeeded in Swededn but not in Canada. If our socialism is to look like NDP-style socialism, then I'd rather go libertarian all the way. There's no point having all kinds of restrictions such as minimum wage, qualifications, certificates, etc., if we have to pay for the education for all those certificates so as to be worthy of that minimum wage.

Looking at it that way, it would seem the Swedes understood we can't have it both ways. If we want minimum wages, we must also provide the free and universal quality education to ensure people can earn those wages, otherwise the minimum wage laws and certification requirments will merely amount to legislated unemployment.

Looking at it that way, libertarianism and rational socialism are the same in some ways: the libertarian recognizes that if the state won't provide free higher education for all, then it forfeits the right to block people from employment by imposing minimum wages, prohibiting volunteer work to gain experience, etc. and the rational socialist recognizes that before we can have minimum wage laws and certification requirments for this or that job, higher education must first become free and universal.

The NDP, unfortunately, got it @ss backwards, encouraging minimum wage laws, certification requirements etc. BEFORE introducing free and compulsory education. The education must come before the standards, otehrwise it's imposed, legislated unemployment, the ultimate cruelty.

[OddSox]

What labour laws specifically?

I'd be in favour of giving workers voting rights on the board of directors of companies, much as is the case in workers' co-ops, as that would promote unity between labour and management, all working together to share ideas to overcome common challenges. That's a far cry from the confrontational approach labour unions now use, whereby they intimidate workers to join them and pay their dues or face the consequences, whereby the only way they know of dealing with management is with threatening strikes, etc.

I'm not necessarily saying management are always angels either, but simply that confrontation can only get us so far.

In sone European countries, by the way, they have used systems similar to what I'm proposing above, whereby workers have more say in the company, thus marginalizing essentially making redundant the power of the union leaders.

Sure, good idea - as long as the unions take responsibility for their part in the decisions. If the company loses money then the unions take their share of the loss along with the shareholders and other investors. (oh and does the middle manager serf who doesn't get union benefits or a share of the management bonuses also get a say?)

In the case of the public sector, there needs to be a way to measure success or failure - and despite many attempts by different stakeholders I'm not sure if anyone has managed to do that accurately.

[Machjo]

Sure, good idea - as long as the unions take responsibility for their part in the decisions. If the company loses money then the unions take their share of the loss along with the shareholders and other investors. (oh and does the middle manager serf who doesn't get union benefits or a share of the management bonuses also get a say?)

Unions would take no share of nothing, since they would not be officially recognized. This would be between workers and management, with the union having no official recognition at all.

Now on the other hand, to be fair, there should be no minimum wage so that, in hard times, workers could take deep salary cuts if need be instead of government bailouts. They'd have to be on their own. We could possibly add too (and I think this would be reasonable) that workers would each have to buy at least one share in the company or, if they can't afford it initially, have it taken out of their pay on their first pay check. That way the workers too wold have an interest in the success of the company.

In the case of the public sector, there needs to be a way to measure success or failure - and despite many attempts by different stakeholders I'm not sure if anyone has managed to do that accurately.

I'd say that if it can be privatized, it ought to, maybe gradually transformed into a workers' co-op or, if it's a monopolistic company, then a consumers' co-op.

As for what we can't privatize, unions should still not be officially recognized. One solution even thre could be to give workers a vote on the board of directors of the department, but no unions and no right to strike. In a dispute, a court could decide.

[Moonbox]

You ask that labour laws be reversed and that the rights of the worker be eliminated. I don't see that as very beneficial to citizens at all.

The rights of union workers in our country are not fair. Some labour laws SHOULD be reversed. It's not fair that unions in vital public service monopolies can hold Canadian taxpayers hostage for vastly superior wages and benefits to their public sector counterparts. It's not fair that a union is able to shut a company down and pretty much force it into gradual bankruptcy because they refuse to accept wages and benefits anywhere NEAR what the market would bear (GM/Chrysler/Ford anyone?) and instead insist on grossly overinflated contracts. What's especially not fair is that when this union DOES shut a company down they're then LEGALLY allowed to prevent and accost anyone who IS willing to work for a fair wage.

There's two sides to the coin here. Right now our public service unions are out of control. There are uses for unions and labour laws, but they should NOT be to bully/intimidate/inconvenience companies and governments into accepting TOTALLY unjustifiable wages and benefits.

BANKING SICK DAYS? ARE YOU SHITTING ME!!!????

[tango]

The rights of union workers in our country are not fair. Some labour laws SHOULD be reversed. It's not fair that unions in vital public service monopolies can hold Canadian taxpayers hostage for vastly superior wages and benefits to their public sector counterparts.

I think you meant 'private sector'. Imagine how much lousier private sector wages and benefits would be without the example of the public sector.

It's not fair that a union is able to shut a company down and pretty much force it into gradual bankruptcy because they refuse to accept wages and benefits anywhere NEAR what the market would bear (GM/Chrysler/Ford anyone?) and instead insist on grossly overinflated contracts. What's especially not fair is that when this union DOES shut a company down they're then LEGALLY allowed to prevent and accost anyone who IS willing to work for a fair wage.

If workers can't shut the business down, then they are just slaves with no power. If unions have no power, NO WORKERS have any power and all wages will drop, yours too. If scabs are allowed to work, the power of ALL workers is destroyed.

The wage comparisons published by the companies were not based on valid comparisons. They are bs. Auto workers in Canada and the US have comparable wages and benefits.

There's two sides to the coin here. Right now our public service unions are out of control. There are uses for unions and labour laws, but they should NOT be to bully/intimidate/inconvenience companies and governments into accepting TOTALLY unjustifiable wages and benefits.

Again, bs. The wages are justified. If companies go under it's because they have not properly addressed their market, or someone is manipulating the market. It has absolutely nothing to do with workers' wages. Many companies take better care of their equipment than they do their workforce. If there were no unions, we'd all still be working 12 hr days 7 days a week, to make bigger profits for the already wealthy.

[Argus]

The rights of union workers in our country are not fair. Some labour laws SHOULD be reversed. It's not fair that unions in vital public service monopolies can hold Canadian taxpayers hostage for vastly superior wages and benefits to their public sector counterparts.

I used to think that, but I was convinced otherwise some years back by a PSAC union guy - well before I joined the government, btw. First he pointed out the situation in Europe, and how much better workers have it there, with far more sick leave, holiday pay, benefits and protection than we have. Then he pointed at the situation in the US, where people barely get two weeks vacation, if that, and are often afraid to take them lest they be fired. He asked which society I would prefer to be a part of. He then asked me what example the government should be setting in Canada. Should it be trying to race to the bottom, to screw its workers as much as possible, give out the lowest possible wages and benefits, or should it be trying to set an example of more care for workers and a better life for them? I frankly think that European workers still have it far better than us, and yet still have higher productivity than we do.

Have a look at their wages and benefits sometime and then tell me those of public sector unions here are so shocking.

[CANADIEN]

I'll be the first to admit that union benefits can be ridiculously generous. And to say the right to strike or lock-out in the public sector should be abolished.

That being said, I will second tango and Argus word for word on this one. Even with excesses, unions are a fondamental part of a fair society.

[madmax]

There's a difference between associating freely and engaging in walkouts.

I'm all for not criminalizing the existance of unions. I'd just propose that they not be legally recognized in the law. This would mean that, legally, a gathering of union members would be equal to any loose gathering of people.

You are trying to argue both sides of the coin...

..... Canadian workers were often obliged to contend with horrendous conditions—long hours, few holidays and minimal rights in the marketplace. In an era when the ‘captains of industry’ ruled the economy, quitting a job could be construed as a criminal offence for a worker, punishable by imprisonment under the Master and Servant Act. Workers' ability to form unions and take collective action was severely constrained by the law--unions were seen as unlawful associations. Although local unions existed, it was illegal to form unions.

On May 15, 1872, by defying the existing law and employers’ will, a group of workers in Hamilton, Ontario launched the Nine-Hour Movement to regulate working hours. For the first time, Canadian labour organized a unified protest movement, behind which workers from all over Ontario and Quebec actively rallied.

Although this and other protests failed to secure a nine-hour day for all, the movement did mark a turning point for labour in Canada. In response to this movement and public pressure, Prime Minister John A. Macdonald introduced a bill in Parliament to make trade unions legal—Parliament passed the Trade Unions Act on June 14, 1872. Macdonald declared that he was the “working man’s friend”.

The CLU platform called for shorter working hours, and vigorously opposed the use of convict labour and employment of children under the age of 10 years. Such labour activism tended to attract skilled, relatively well-paid workers; the vast majority of unskilled workers in the economy remained powerless in the market place.

[madmax]

Looking at it that way, libertarianism and rational socialism are the same in some ways: the libertarian recognizes that if the state won't provide free higher education for all, then it forfeits the right to block people from employment by imposing minimum wages, prohibiting volunteer work to gain experience, etc. and the rational socialist recognizes that before we can have minimum wage laws and certification requirments for this or that job, higher education must first become free and universal.

The NDP, unfortunately, got it @ss backwards, encouraging minimum wage laws, certification requirements etc. BEFORE introducing free and compulsory education. The education must come before the standards, otehrwise it's imposed, legislated unemployment, the ultimate cruelty.

You moved the argument to political parties and away from Unions. However from those whom you wish to not legally recognise....

The union not only advocated for the benefit of the working classes but also became involved in political activities. In subsequent conventions, the CLU passed resolutions calling for all men to have free public education, direct labour representation in Parliament, and the right to vote.

Edited July 31, 2009 by madmax

[madmax]

I frankly think that European workers still have it far better than us, and yet still have higher productivity than we do.

Have a look at their wages and benefits sometime and then tell me those of public sector unions here are so shocking.

I know the Canadian Productivity figures will improve upon your retirement.

[Moonbox]

Argus is there proven statistics for European productivity vs our own?

Just wondering....

[benny]

Unions exist to insist on a distribution that will allow the sale of the production.

[punked]

With out Unions the middle class dies. End of story. A lot of people credit WW2 with the creation of the middle class but they forget the largest union boom happened at the sametime. I don't think I am ok with the middle class dieing but a lot of people are.

[M.Dancer]

With out Unions the middle class dies. End of story. A lot of people credit WW2 with the creation of the middle class but they forget the largest union boom happened at the sametime. I don't think I am ok with the middle class dieing but a lot of people are.

Ummm......i would hazard to guess that the middle class is about 10 times the size of union membership in Canada. And not all union jobs are high paying either.

[punked]

Ummm......i would hazard to guess that the middle class is about 10 times the size of union membership in Canada. And not all union jobs are high paying either.

That is because the threat of forming a Union raises benefits in all fields of work. It is game theory at work. If you give the workers enough they wont form a Union and make you give them more, while those who have a union always make the threat of union in other work places possible.

I suggest Game theory By Morton D. Davis for a start to see how these things are clearly related.

[M.Dancer]

That is because the threat of forming a Union raises benefits in all fields of work. It is game theory at work. If you give the workers enough they wont form a Union and make you give them more, while those who have a union always make the threat of union in other work places possible.

I suggest Game theory By Morton D. Davis for a start to see how these things are clearly related.

The main reason union membership is so low is most people don't want to be employed in a union. The main reason why wages care high is competion and it isn't unions who are generally active in industries where workers have little competitive leverage.

A skilled worker can ask for a raise and if he doesn't get it he can start sending out his resume. A unionized garbage collector on the otherhand could be replaced by anyone able for 20% less. A garbage collector can't say to management, give me a raise or I will collect garbage for someone else...they need a union and union goons to get their raises.

[punked]

The main reason union membership is so low is most people don't want to be employed in a union. The main reason why wages care high is competion and it isn't unions who are generally active in industries where workers have little competitive leverage.

A skilled worker can ask for a raise and if he doesn't get it he can start sending out his resume. A unionized garbage collector on the otherhand could be replaced by anyone able for 20% less. A garbage collector can't say to management, give me a raise or I will collect garbage for someone else...they need a union and union goons to get their raises.

See that just isn't true and the recession proves that. You can cut, and cut, and cut during a recession to a non union worker and all they do is whine, but when those end do their wages or benefits come back? Almost never, however as we have seen with the unions they are able to take up and stop the cutting because once this recession ends they know everything cut wont be coming back.

However if unions are an option for workers employers have to think twice about what they are going to do to workers. It is simple game theory. If their aren't any unions it is still simple game theory. All markets drop what they are paying both skilled and unskilled workers and then compete in the lower wages bracket for the very best while still saving money. That is game theory. Works everytime in bisuness if you don't compete but just take a slice of the pie in the long run you make more when not presented with the chance to monopolies the market.

[Machjo]

You are trying to argue both sides of the coin...

No. Just saying unins should have no legal recognition.

..... Canadian workers were often obliged to contend with horrendous conditions—long hours, few holidays and minimal rights in the marketplace. In an era when the ‘captains of industry’ ruled the economy, quitting a job could be construed as a criminal offence for a worker, punishable by imprisonment under the Master and Servant Act. Workers' ability to form unions and take collective action was severely constrained by the law--unions were seen as unlawful associations. Although local unions existed, it was illegal to form unions.

Instead of forming unions, why didn't they just vote for the right candidates in elections?

Although this and other protests failed to secure a nine-hour day for all, the movement did mark a turning point for labour in Canada. In response to this movement and public pressure, Prime Minister John A. Macdonald introduced a bill in Parliament to make trade unions legal—Parliament passed the Trade Unions Act on June 14, 1872. Macdonald declared that he was the “working man’s friend”.

Instead of creating the modern labour-union system, whereby labour and management are always in conflict, why didn't they just give workers voting rights on the board of directors? Common sense: when workers are on strike, nothing is being produced for the economy. So obviously striking is not particularly efficient from an economic standpoint, with management losing production hours, and labour losing working hours. It really is a lose-lose solution.

The CLU platform called for shorter working hours, and vigorously opposed the use of convict labour and employment of children under the age of 10 years. Such labour activism tended to attract skilled, relatively well-paid workers; the vast majority of unskilled workers in the economy remained powerless in the market place.

As for children, I can understand theat. They ought to be at school. As for convicts, on the one hand, I can certainly understand wanting to 'punish' them, but I also believe in respecting human dignity, and this coming from one who also supports capital punishment for certain crimes.

I believe that all who are alive and want to work ought to have the freedom to do so, even if they are prisoners.

[Machjo]

... the vast majority of unskilled workers in the economy remained powerless in the market place.

This is another reason I oppose granting special recognition to unions. Tehy can have the power to even disrupt the lives of some who may be even less advantaged than them through legal strike action.

[Machjo]

How about we just de unionize the public services?

As I've mentioned before, unions should have no legal recognition. If they go on strike, as far as I'm concerned, that's equal to not showing up for work as the contract requires, risking a few red slips.

[Machjo]

I think you meant 'private sector'. Imagine how much lousier private sector wages and benefits would be without the example of the public sector.

On the contrary. The private sector must pay high taxes to maintain public sector wages!

If workers can't shut the business down, then they are just slaves with no power. If unions have no power, NO WORKERS have any power and all wages will drop, yours too. If scabs are allowed to work, the power of ALL workers is destroyed.

What is the economic value of shutting a business down? If the business is shut down, no one produces anything, which hurts the employer and the workers. They can't squeeze water out of a rock now can they?

Again, bs. The wages are justified. If companies go under it's because they have not properly addressed their market, or someone is manipulating the market. It has absolutely nothing to do with workers' wages. Many companies take better care of their equipment than they do their workforce. If there were no unions, we'd all still be working 12 hr days 7 days a week, to make bigger profits for the already wealthy.

The market determines the wages. So yes, it have much to do with the wages. That's why I'd say scrap the minimum wage and just give workers voting rights instead.

[punked]

No. Just saying unins should have no legal recognition.

Instead of forming unions, why didn't they just vote for the right candidates in elections?

Because they did vote in the "right" Candidate Mckenzie King he promised the sky then after the election put all the promise in a box and did whatever he felt like. He promised a Pension Plan but did not deliver until the Progressives almost brought down the government over it, he promised a Health Care act it took Tommy Douglas to do that, Welfare, a minim wage the list goes on and on.

Instead of creating the modern labour-union system, whereby labour and management are always in conflict, why didn't they just give workers voting rights on the board of directors? Common sense: when workers are on strike, nothing is being produced for the economy. So obviously striking is not particularly efficient from an economic standpoint, with management losing production hours, and labour losing working hours. It really is a lose-lose solution.

Strikes were busted up, and leaders sent a packing. During the Winnipeg General Strike one man died and 3 were deported. Davis day is a holiday every year in NS to commemorate William Davis. A striking Coal miner who was shot and killed because he didn't think it right to cut the power to an entire town who tried to unionize the mines. You talk as if they were easy times to strike when unions were formed.

[Machjo]

I used to think that, but I was convinced otherwise some years back by a PSAC union guy - well before I joined the government, btw. First he pointed out the situation in Europe, and how much better workers have it there, with far more sick leave, holiday pay, benefits and protection than we have. Then he pointed at the situation in the US, where people barely get two weeks vacation, if that, and are often afraid to take them lest they be fired. He asked which society I would prefer to be a part of. He then asked me what example the government should be setting in Canada. Should it be trying to race to the bottom, to screw its workers as much as possible, give out the lowest possible wages and benefits, or should it be trying to set an example of more care for workers and a better life for them? I frankly think that European workers still have it far better than us, and yet still have higher productivity than we do.

Have a look at their wages and benefits sometime and then tell me those of public sector unions here are so shocking.

Many European social democrats are not particularly allied with unions though. It's not about giving unions the right to strike, walk out, etc. but rather about giving standards for both the public and private sectors. That's very different from the NDP, which is a labour party all the way.