Unions in Canada

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Same here. COL clause in contract is what I was after because I thought we have a very good wage. The rest of the bargaining team thought COL was great but wanted a wage increase to boot. vote 6-1 favour of them.

Anyone who thinks unions are filled with Marxists are in dreamland.

My attempt was to provide a means of limiting negotiations since a great deal of time is always spent on the money issues and talks usually devolve into that category. I thought that by eliminating that specific area of discussion other issues of relevance could be negotiated.

[Peter F]

Actually they do more than withold their labour. They frequently obstruct access to facilities and sometimes resort to violence. In the Toronto strike, picketers did not permit residents access to the depot to deposit trash.

Obstucting access to facilities is illegal. Strikers can put up pickets but they cannot deny access. Thats the law.

The police can be sent in to arrest the obstructors.

Whatever should we do to deny citizens the power to act illegally?

There aughta be a law against such things...

[Bonam]

Unions have way too much power. This should be plainly evident from the fact that, for example, the big car companies were unable to compel the unions to agree to cost-cutting measures until the companies were on the very verge of bankruptcy, and even then, only with massive pressure from government.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Unions have way too much power. This should be plainly evident from the fact that, for example, the big car companies were unable to compel the unions to agree to cost-cutting measures until the companies were on the very verge of bankruptcy, and even then, only with massive pressure from government.

Once again, the unions have powers granted unto them by law. Is this to much power? Perhaps, but think about the rights of labour before you decide.

In addition you need to review the facts and see for yourself that the unions DID in fact agree to numerous concessions for the auto companies.

[Moonbox]

In addition you need to review the facts and see for yourself that the unions DID in fact agree to numerous concessions for the auto companies.

After it was too late. It should have been apparent by the early 2000's that Honda and Toyota had a 33% cost advantage in North American labour and that this was reflected in the cost, and overall value, of the cars they were selling as compared to American. It was quite clear then that the Big Three were doomed unless they could get big concessions and the unions were too greedy to care.

Fast forward to 2009 and the inevitable happened, and the concessions the unions are giving I imagine (don't have the numbers on me) still don't leave them competitive with Honda and Toyota. The Canadian taxpayers have had to shore up the difference and bail out their pensions. Freaking awesome.

I'd have been happy seeing them screwed in retirement, because they deserved it collectively.

[charter.rights]

After it was too late. It should have been apparent by the early 2000's that Honda and Toyota had a 33% cost advantage in North American labour and that this was reflected in the cost, and overall value, of the cars they were selling as compared to American. It was quite clear then that the Big Three were doomed unless they could get big concessions and the unions were too greedy to care.

Fast forward to 2009 and the inevitable happened, and the concessions the unions are giving I imagine (don't have the numbers on me) still don't leave them competitive with Honda and Toyota. The Canadian taxpayers have had to shore up the difference and bail out their pensions. Freaking awesome.

I'd have been happy seeing them screwed in retirement, because they deserved it collectively.

Union wages makes up less than 3% of the overall cost of building cars at GM. So sticking it to the union has nothng to do with cost-saving measures and more to do with power and deception. GM doesn't want anyone to know that they are holding GMAC big billion dollar debt, and that executives and managers have to maintain their jets and lush condos.

Do the math.....$5 billion to save what GM says they will pare down to about 5500 Canadian jobs. Not a wise investment ...is it....

[Moonbox]

Union wages makes up less than 3% of the overall cost of building cars at GM. So sticking it to the union has nothng to do with cost-saving measures and more to do with power and deception. GM doesn't want anyone to know that they are holding GMAC big billion dollar debt, and that executives and managers have to maintain their jets and lush condos.

Do the math.....$5 billion to save what GM says they will pare down to about 5500 Canadian jobs. Not a wise investment ...is it....

Care to back up those figures? You don't have any clue what you're talking about.

As of about a year ago Honda and Toyota had something like a $35/hour labor advantage in North America. That's why GM and Chrysler were never able to compete.

In 2006, health care and holiday pay alone cost GM about $2300 extra per vehicle over Toyota. That's a fraction of the overall benefits. When you look at pension and other benefits, the UAW single-handedly sunk the auto-makers. You can say all you want about debt and poor product offerings, but when your competitors can offer thousands in savings for comparable cars because your unions are gouging you on uneducated and unskilled labor, even if you were offering the right vehicles you STILL wouldn't have been competitive.

I'm not saying management at GM was good. I'm saying that regardless of management, the unions screwed everyone over. I'm paying for their greed.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Moonbox

[Bonam]

Once again, the unions have powers granted unto them by law. Is this to much power? Perhaps, but think about the rights of labour before you decide.

What rights would be infrined upon without the unions? Compare the working conditions at a non-unionized car plant in North America (i.e. from a Japanese company) to the working conditions at a GM/Ford/Chrysler plant. Are the guys at the Toyota plant working for pennies an hour, in suffocating toxic air, without time off, 16 hours a day, from the age of 5? No they aren't. These are the things that unions were meant to stop, and they are now enshrined in law; the unions having nothing further to contribute.

[Renegade]

Obstucting access to facilities is illegal. Strikers can put up pickets but they cannot deny access. Thats the law.

The police can be sent in to arrest the obstructors.

Whatever should we do to deny citizens the power to act illegally?

Of course it is illegal but it hasn't stopped some strikers from doing so. The problem is enforcement. I can't recall the last time when police arrested a striker for obstructing access to facilites.

The police shouldn't be "sent it". They should enforce the law as part of their normal duties as they would for any other law.

There aughta be a law against such things...and it ought to be enforced

There, completed it for you. You're welcome!

[Peter F]

Of course it is illegal but it hasn't stopped some strikers from doing so. The problem is enforcement. I can't recall the last time when police arrested a striker for obstructing access to facilites.

The police shouldn't be "sent it". They should enforce the law as part of their normal duties as they would for any other law.

Thanks. But whats your point? Is it that its the Unions fault that government doesnt enforce the law? Its the Unions fault that police wont arrest stikers for behaving in an illegal manner? Is the fault that Unions have too much control of the Police? of Management? of government?

[Moonbox]

Thanks. But whats your point? Is it that its the Unions fault that government doesnt enforce the law? Its the Unions fault that police wont arrest stikers for behaving in an illegal manner? Is the fault that Unions have too much control of the Police? of Management? of government?

Pretty much yes to all of the above.

The government won't crack down on unions for fear of losing their votes.

When we find a politician who doesn't give a **** what they think then we'll be laughing.

[Peter F]

What rights would be infrined upon without the unions? Compare the working conditions at a non-unionized car plant in North America (i.e. from a Japanese company) to the working conditions at a GM/Ford/Chrysler plant. Are the guys at the Toyota plant working for pennies an hour, in suffocating toxic air, without time off, 16 hours a day, from the age of 5? No they aren't. These are the things that unions were meant to stop, and they are now enshrined in law; the unions having nothing further to contribute.

The unions have achieved much in regards to working conditions and labour laws etc. But unions did not enact these protections

by thier lonesomes. Unions cannot enact legislation. All they can do is bring such things to the attention of the public who then get political partys to be elected or, if governing, to enact the legislation.

Yes, abuse is things that unions were meant to stop and many abuses have been stopped. Union activity is still - even now with all this protective labour legislation - a means to stop abuse.

example: My daughter worked for a cruise company in Quebec City selling cruises to tourist groups. The employer required many hours of overtime from her but never paid her for it.

Labour laws in Quebec say overtime must be compensated at time and a half (or double time, I cant remember exactly) yet the company refused to pay her and her co-workers for overtime worked, unless, of course, the specific employment contract states otherwise.

Management claims the employment contract states otherwise so no overtime. She asks to see the employment contract. They refuse to produce it.

As a non-unionized employee her only option was to file a complaint with the Quebec Labour board. Of course this takes lots of time and depends on overworked Labour Board public servants to persue the matter with alll the intendant delays appeals etc until eventuallly the Labour board has the facts and then sits down to hear the case. All this takes lots of time usually about a year.

Being a union guy she sought my advice. My advice was to persue the matter with the QLB and also that she must realize that if not the end of her employment the certainly the end of any hopes for advancement and that she would not be hired next summer either. But in the end, about a year from now, she would get her overtime as long as she doesn't quit the action with the QLB.

In the meantime she would be subject to all sorts of trivial abuse and stress brought by her managers for putting them in the juice. So she needs to decide wether persuiing the matter was worth it or not. In my books she should persue it cause she's getting screwed by management no matter how it turns out so make them pay the price of it. She thought different and dropped the issue.

Well, that was her choice. So be it. But the company got hours of free work out of her and the Labour laws didnt stop their abuse.

Labour laws are pretty innefective in protecting a worker. Almost always the employee who filed the complaint is out of a job by the time the complaint is decided in thier favour (if it is in their favour). And if its not in their favour the employee is most probably already out of a job.

Any Union worth its salt (and many unions arent) is far more effective at ending abuse and saving the complaining employees job.

[Peter F]

Pretty much yes to all of the above.

The government won't crack down on unions for fear of losing their votes.

When we find a politician who doesn't give a **** what they think then we'll be laughing.

This is funny! Politicians wont act because they fear union votes. Police wont act cause they fear politicians. Managers are helpless before union demands. All this with falling union membership to boot!

Its the unions fault that everyone else is wimpy.

[August1991]

Getting rid of public sector unions is very easy to do. Enact legislation to that effect. Nuthin to it.

...

Why is that August? What is it that politicians fear and why is it wrong for them to fear it?

You are right, Peter. Getting rid of public unions (or more likely, as a first step, getting rid of their right to strike or privatizing their services) can be done easily. Look at how quickly Obama nationalized GM.

For the moment though, too many in the voting public view unions the way they view human rights tribunals. It's like motherhood, apple pie or pensioners. Public sector unions have abusedthis perception, in addition to their abuse of access to taxpayers' debit and cedit cards.

IMV, Canadian governments will soon have to deal with public sector unions. Rene Levesque, for example, was swifter in dealing with public sector unions than Obama was in dealing with GM.

Unions want far more than money, August. far more. They want decent working hours and conditions and lots of time off and pensions and medical plans and most of all, to be treated by managers as human beings and not as cattle or serfs.

Only 20% of private sector workers are unionized and this proportion is falling. Unions are increasingly an affair of the public sector - 75% and rising. Peter F, you have a naive and false view of unions.

Canadian unions do not oppose or take money from "capitalists". Unions oppose and take money from taxpayers - ordinary people who work at Walmart and have no choice but to pay taxes.

In Canada today, public sector unions are extortion rackets. They operate by intimidation. It is sad to see a union movement reduced to calling fellow taxpayers "management" or "employers". The so-called "collective agreement" is with fellow citizens. How can fellow taxpayers in a democratic state be considered "capitalists"?

Bad Management makes for Strong Unions.

Hear hear, Peter F.

I have worked in establishments with excellent management, and it makes the work environment so much better. One can focus on their tasks and not have to deal with 'noise'. It's preferable to work in such an environment for less money than to work for government for more money, IMO.

Both Peter and Michael, I strongly disagree.

Michael (and Argus), as I pointed out above, all of your criticsms of public sector management ignore the fact that in Canada, public sector employees are increasingly unionized and these public sector unions are increasingly militant. Strikes are rare in Canada now except in the public sector (or in a sector where a government subsidy is possible).

Unions operate by seniority, and I gave the example of teacher's unions where reforms of Canada's education system is basically impossible because any reform would immediately conflict with unions and seniority. Michael, your ideas are interesting but meaningless and impractical. You don't understand how Canadian governments work.

Bad Management does not make Strong Unions. Public Sector Unions make Public Sector Management difficult. In the private sector, strong unions raise theprice of goods sold and eventually invite competitors into the market. (eg. GM.)

Edited June 24, 2009 by August1991

[WIP]

But, that's just it: unions have mostly outlived their purpose. Now that the labour laws are in place, the union leaders have nothing left to do but push for ever more pay, bonuses, and perks, well beyond the non-unionized average. They perhaps shouldn't be outlawed, but the power of unions should now be seriously curtailed.

Those labour laws wouldn't be there without the union movement that created a large working middle-class in the first place! Unions have had much the same impact in the workplace as vaccinations in epidemiology -- the existence of strong unions not only benefited the working union members, it also has had unrecognized secondary benefits for non-union workplaces whose management was forced to offer similar wages and working conditions for their employees, to keep their people from organizing in a union.

Epidemiologists call the protection offered to morons who don't immunize their children to diseases "herd immunity;" and unfortunately, that herd immunity effect starts to break down as higher numbers of people have not been vaccinated (as is happening on a large scale in England and Australia right now). Same thing in the workplace -- as the unions have disappeared, a lot of workers who thought their skills protected their wages and benefits without the need to organize, have seen their earning potentials either flatline or drop, especially now that unemployment is increasing.

BTW, for anyone who thinks labour laws make unions unnecessary -- good luck using those government labour laws to address problems with your employer! Under the current environment, most employers realize full well that 99% of workers will not risk losing their jobs by going to the LRB.

I'll make a deal with anyone who wants to abolish unions and go back to the good old days when the employer held all of the cards -- let's abolish corporations also! Especially the doctrine of corporate personhood and rights. Corporations have more human rights than real people these days!

[August1991]

Union wages makes up less than 3% of the overall cost of building cars at GM.

Like moonbox, do you have a link to support that claim? (Bear in mind that "wages" include all labour costs, including SPA days.)

More generally, the question is whether a unionized work force generates better effort for the same overall payment. [sarcasm ahead]According to Michael and Peter F above, unionized work forces are a sign of bad management. IOW, a successful society should in principle discourage organizations with unions since that would be a sign of bad management.[/sarcasm]

But whats your point? Is it that its the Unions fault that government doesnt enforce the law? Its the Unions fault that police wont arrest stikers for behaving in an illegal manner? Is the fault that Unions have too much control of the Police? of Management? of government?

Unions intimidate people. It seems obvious to me why unions have gravitated to the public sector.

If you don't pay Visa, you have a problem. If you don't pay your taxes, you have a far more serious problem. You can go to jail.

I have no objection to the State's ability to intimidate, assuming that the State is democratic and its government is subject to a constitution. A civilized society requires a State with force. I strongly object to a union abusing the State's force for its private ends.

----

Let me explain my viewpoint more clearly.

A union employee in Canada now largely means a government employee. Union and public sector are synonyms. We in Canada have allowed cartels (public sector unions) to abuse the power of the State to take our money through taxes, or to take our money by borrowing in our name.

Edited June 24, 2009 by August1991

[Moonbox]

This is funny! Politicians wont act because they fear union votes. Police wont act cause they fear politicians. Managers are helpless before union demands. All this with falling union membership to boot!

Its the unions fault that everyone else is wimpy.

Managers are helpless before union demands because of politicians. Scab employees are discouraged through threats and intimidation from the unions and the government and authorities do nothing about it. Non union people are thus unable to do anything about it and even if they do retaliate with similar threats and violence, THEY get punished.

Unions, at least big ones like the UAW and the public sector unions, are rife with corruption and the corruption extends to the politicians who pander to them. We are getting screwed as taxpayers right now with the GM bailout because Obama wanted to help out the guys who paid for him to win the election. Look up how much the UAW contributed to his election campaign. I dare ya.

[WIP]

Only 20% of private sector workers are unionized and this proportion is falling. Unions are increasingly an affair of the public sector - 75% and rising. Peter F, you have a naive and false view of unions.

Which is why the middle class is disappearing! You capitalist fools are trying to turn the clock back to the days when a small, powerful minority had all of the wealth and wielded all of the real political power -- and that is the essence of conservatism. Maintaining a stable, authoritarian society requires a working class that is too busy struggling to pay the bills and put food on the table, to become active participants in the political process. The fact that unions are disappearing outside of the public sector, is not a fault of government or the people who work for the government -- it's an indictment of the free trade policies that you and other conservative ideologues trumpeted over 20 years ago, that would increase everyone's living standards -- "a rising tide raises all boats"" or some bullshit, as I recall.

The truth is that most people's real incomes levels have dropped over the years, thanks to free trade policies that flood the market with cheap imports, and they've had to compensate by working longer hours or taking second jobs to maintain their standard of living. Up till the 60's, the average working man could buy a house, one or two cars, and support a family, without requiring a second income from his wife -- needless to say, those days are long gone thanks to the broken promises of conservative economic theorists who have made most of us poorer while enriching the top 1 to 5%.

Bad Management does not make Strong Unions. Public Sector Unions make Public Sector Management difficult. In the private sector, strong unions raise theprice of goods sold and eventually invite competitors into the market. (eg. GM.)

Another downside of your wonderful conservative economic principles is that the pay scales for government managers is way behind what they can make in the private sector. For some reason, corporations try to keep the vast majority of their wage employees at minimum wage levels if possible, and yet give ridiculous rewards to fellow members of the executive club. As a result, the civil service manager is more likely to be one who is not able to get in to the corporate management world, for whatever reasons. Think about it! If the people in charge of Toronto's public services had any brains, they wouldn't have written contracts that expire at the beginning of summer.....especially for garbage collectors!

[bjre]

I am sure, if the companies fire them all, they can hire enough workers with lower salary.

[Bonam]

Which is why the middle class is disappearing!

The middle class is made up of non-unionized professionals, not of unskilled unionized laborers. Manual unskilled labor is disappearing as a requirement in Western countries due to the greater prevalence of both automation and globalization. If the middle class is disappearing, it is only because of increasingly socialist policies that tax the middle class more and more to pay for extravagant social projects and wealth redistribution schemes.

The truth is that most people's real incomes levels have dropped over the years

False. People's real incomes have dropped only when compared to the price of real estate, which I'll explain later. People today enjoy vastly more goods and services that were either much more expensive or entirely non-existent several decades ago. Vacations several times a year to foreign countries, large screen TVs, multiple cars per family, computers and the internet, mobile gadgets, etc. The quality of these goods continues to increase over time. For example, a computer that was worth $2000 5 years ago would be worth almost nothing now, and a new computer would outperform that 5 year old computer by hundreds or thousands of times. This is a huge deflationary factor that most people fail to consider. The goods we buy today represent far more value than equivalent goods that we bought years or decades ago. A 2009 car is not the same as a 1960s car, it is packed full of features, technologies, and safeties that did not exist in the 1960s.

Up till the 60's, the average working man could buy a house, one or two cars, and support a family, without requiring a second income from his wife

That was because in the 60s, more and more women started working. They did so not because it was financially required of them at the time, but because of the ideas of equality and the feminist movement in general. However, since families generally continue to live together in one house, the number of houses on the market did not change appreciably, while most families started bringing in significantly higher combined incomes. Since houses are traded on a free market, and families are willing to spend a large % of their total combined income to purchase as good a house in as good a location as they can afford, the price of houses went way up, so as to eat up roughly the same % (or even higher) of a family's combined income as before.

Another downside of your wonderful conservative economic principles is that the pay scales for government managers is way behind what they can make in the private sector. For some reason, corporations try to keep the vast majority of their wage employees at minimum wage levels if possible, and yet give ridiculous rewards to fellow members of the executive club.

Corporations pay a worker what they are worth. When a labor market is not in demand, someone that provides manual labor is easily replaceable, so if they quit, it's no big deal, as you can hire a replacement. When a manual labor market is in high demand, wages go up. For example, the cost of construction went way up in BC in the last few years before the recession, due to the combined effect of the booming economy and the Olympic construction. Executives in a company generally have (or, at least, should have) deep knowledge of the company and extensive experience that would be difficult (or, in some cases, impossible) for the company to replace. Hence they are paid more to ensure they keep the job. This is also the case for professionals in some companies - an engineer with 30 years experience at a company, who knows things about their products and designs that no one else has a good understanding of, can make a salary well in the 6 figure range.

Government has been increasingly following the same ideas, as you can see with recent extremely large wage hikes to politicians and bureaucrats, in an attempt to attract and retain more talented individuals.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Bonam

[Remiel]

Executives in a company generally have (or, at least, should have) deep knowledge of the company and extensive experience that would be difficult (or, in some cases, impossible) for the company to replace. Hence they are paid more to ensure they keep the job.

This seems to be directed contradicted by the existance of the golden parachute, which minimizes the cost of upper management of losing their jobs.

There are way too many corporate apologists around here. Managers and good, workers are bad. I get it. There are two completely different standards for the behaviour of people. If managers are greedy and want a bigger paycheque, it is the free market in action and they should be praised, even if it is blatantly unfair to everyone else. If workers unionize and want a bigger paycheque, they are scum who do not think about their fellow workers in other professions.

Class Guilt.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

What rights would be infrined upon without the unions? Compare the working conditions at a non-unionized car plant in North America (i.e. from a Japanese company) to the working conditions at a GM/Ford/Chrysler plant. Are the guys at the Toyota plant working for pennies an hour, in suffocating toxic air, without time off, 16 hours a day, from the age of 5? No they aren't. These are the things that unions were meant to stop, and they are now enshrined in law; the unions having nothing further to contribute.

According to you that is. Do you understand that the unions are continually seeking improved working conditions and benefits for their members? Keep in mind these folks are paid representatives and they expected to bring value for their services.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

I think with a lack of unions we would have a lot more rich business owners, and a hell of a lot more poor who can barely pay their bills. As WIP suggested, unions help to raise the wages of non-union workers. If no unions existed it would be a race to the bottom for corporations to pay their employees as little as possible.

Bringing in boatloads of immigrants that are willing to do hard work for pennies doesn't help fight against that race for the bottom either.

I've heard stories about when Ford first unionized and wages started to improve. Finally the average worker could afford a house - and better yet, could afford the goods that companies were selling. It was good for the economy as a whole: More people with disposable income = more money spent = more goods being made and sold = more jobs = stronger economy.

Having a race for the bottom and lowering people's income does the opposite - it will destroy the economy even worse. Companies do not pay what people deserve, companies pay as little as they can get away with to retain an employee.

Here is a personal story...

Up until 2 years ago I was a truck driver working in the private sector (despite having a MSc from U of Waterloo, truck driving was all I could get). At the time I was making $15/hour and expected to work 60 to 70 hours a week while never being home - and when I was home all I could do was sleep. Not a very good life at all - in fact, I was ready to leave this shit-hole of a country for good. If my education and skills weren't desired here, I would go overseas to where they are (like Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Dubai, etc etc).

Finally I managed to get into Canada Post as a truck driver. Now I make about $23/hour - which in the GTA is just barely enough to pay my mortgage on a condo, taxes, insurance, and gas - so now I am making nearly the same take home income, but much less time spent doing so.

I am much happier to making a much more reasonable wage, which coincidentally is not out of line with other private unionized companies like UPS or FedEx, but primarily I am much happier because I am not being worked to the bone and I am never expected to operate in dangerous conditions. In private non-unionized trucking firms I was expected to go over my logbook hours and lie, I was expected to ignore unsafe equipment, and if I didn't listen and complained there were piles of other drivers willing to put themselves and everyone on the road at risk.

[Remiel]

...which coincidentally is not out of line with other private unionized companies like UPS or FedEx...

Just a small note here: Most of FedEx is not unionzed overall, though there are some isolated parts of the organization that are.

[Topaz]

Don't you think that in the case of what happen in the US with the banks and the auto sector that the CEO's came out on top and not the unions? The unions had to fight along the way to keep the pensions for their pensioners. Some financial companies walked away with millions and the workers got nothing! Unless a person can work for a company that treats them as well as themselves, then there will always be a place for unions even though the business world wants them gone.