Unions in Canada

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Corporate heads look at powerful unions as competition. Even if the unions never effected the corporate bottom line - the corporates are mean spirited and want to empoverish as many as possible because they were sadistic as children - and are just as bored and sadistic as adults - I really see no other reason for cruel behavior other that some personality disorder that rides high in the minds of the born rich crowd..they have enough - but they get a kick out of others having absolutely nothing - and if they could - they would have garbage men picking up their waste products for 50 cents an hour..and sleeping at the dump in a ten - that would make the wealthy power mongers - feel important - the fact is they are not any more important than the rest..they all excrete human waste and all consume creating garbage..in the end they are rendered to being human waste - at the crematorium or the burial plot - I just wish that those on top would mature and behave like human beings instead of demi-god - because they are not gods..gods don't poop. They poop like the rest of us - but deny doing so - like a self absorbed fashion model who swears she never excretes..

I don't see management that way Oleg. They are just folks who want to keep their hands clean and use their brains instead of their backs to earn a living. They are usually better educated than most other employees, and they are generally team players with ambitions. They are no different than the workers with the one exception that they usually are willing to put in a big effort and expect a big reward. The union guy just does his job, doesn't worry about the other guys job, and general does as little as they can.

Some people do power trip and in fact this exists within the unions as well as in management. These folks are just jerks, and there is no shortage of these people anywhere on the planet. Its not just union good, management bad because they are all people and subject to all of the flaws of humanity.

[Craig1]

I don't see management that way Oleg. They are just folks who want to keep their hands clean and use their brains instead of their backs to earn a living. They are usually better educated than most other employees, and they are generally team players with ambitions. They are no different than the workers with the one exception that they usually are willing to put in a big effort and expect a big reward. The union guy just does his job, doesn't worry about the other guys job, and general does as little as they can.

Some people do power trip and in fact this exists within the unions as well as in management. These folks are just jerks, and there is no shortage of these people anywhere on the planet. Its not just union good, management bad because they are all people and subject to all of the flaws of humanity.

Jerry you seem to have a pretty negative view about union workers, why? I actually find it insulting most of my family works union and they are hard working and good at what they do. They are proud generous people who only want a fair days pay for a fair days work. But what you also need to understand like in the private sector if you get above the age of 50 they consider you no good anymore specially in labor intensive fields but. On the union side they look after there older boys/girls they ensure they still have jobs after all they also paid there debt to society, besides allot of older people hold allot of knoledge they may not be the fastest but they are good to learn from and often can show you the "tricks of the trade"as they say:

[Craig1]

my dad also has a poster of the code of excellece posted on our living room wall. maybe you should read it sometime.

[WIP]

You honestly can't see the difference between a union and a professional association? Unions demand specific pay, benefits, vacation, etc, for their members. They can go on strike as a group. Professional associations do not set pay, they do not demand specific benefits or vacation - these are left to be determined in the contracts between the professionals and their employers. Professional associations cannot go on strike as a group.

If you are able to control the number of entrants into your profession, you are able to determine your earnings, pure and simple! A union that can control membership also does not have to go on strike to achieve pay and working conditions. My father was an ironworker, and during his time at least, the Ironworkers Union was a "closed shop;" no one could work putting up steel buildings or bridges without being a member of the Ironworkers Union. Needless to say, they never had to go on strike. Their only hardship was periodic slowdowns in construction

The purpose of professional associations is to regulate the members and make sure they follow ethical practices, as well as providing insurance in case of malpractice and ensuring that only appropriately qualified people can claim to be a professional in a given field. The purpose of unions is to ensure the best possible pay, benefits, and working conditions for their members.

Does the distinction really escape you? Have you ever been a member of a professional association?

NO, but do the similarities between unions and professional associations really escape you?

[Peter F]

Been away for a few days on PAID LEAVE. Produced absolutly nothing for the employer during this time! .... and now a moments silence for my union forebearers who fought long and hard so that I could actually enjoy my alleged life....

More generally, the question is whether a unionized work force generates better effort for the same overall payment.

I have no idea. Nor do I care. I am not a manager. Efficiency is thier department. If the employer finds giving me paid time off innefficient then they can refuse to give me paid time off. Pretty simple really.

But I am in a union, wich negotiated the terms and conditions of my employment and one of the agreed upon terms

was that employee's get X paid time off.

Is that efficient or inneffecient for society?

Unions intimidate people. ... 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.

Unions are democratic orgainizations. They have to be because its the law.

How is a public service union abusing State Force for 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.

Again we see the divorcing of managers from their inherent responsibility to manage. Unions have become, in your

mind, the ones responsible for government budgets. The politicians actually have no control over things do they? Public Sector unions write the budget for the finance minister - who then signs because some woman thug is holding a gun to his dogs head.

If the unions want more money they get more money right? Its a done deal and bosses are helpless and have no control over events.

...yet, at the same time, the government of the day passes bill C-10 mandating what pay raises for public sector employee's will be. Even to the extent of over-riding previously negotiated contracts. Unions made them do that of course, because government is helpless before Public Sector thuggery. Paul Martin, through acts of parliament, did the very same thing in the 90's because he was helpless before the might of Public Sector unions.

Poor bosses. So weak and feeble.

[zinc]

Unions are useful only in certain companies, the CUPE's right now are annoying and I don't think garbage/city workers should be able to strike, similarly to police/fire/medical

[Remiel]

If someone is too important to allow them to strike, how can they not be important enough to be paid well?

[Keepitsimple]

I was away this week so I apologize if I'm duplicating someone else's comments. The problem with Unions (as I see it) is an evolutionary one. With the introduction of technology and automation in the 60's, there was an increasing ability to improve the productivity of the workplace. The Unions viewed this as sacriledge becuase (so they say) their role was to "protect jobs". Many opportunities for increasing productivity were delayed for years and years, if implemented at all. This, in spite of the fact that contracts could have been easily structured to only "lose" jobs through normal attrition (retirement, etc.). That's because the real issue was not the individual worker - but the power of the unions - less membership - less perceived power. There's a true story from the 60's and 70's that the British Autoworkers actually installed certain nuts and bolts on cars that had no purpose simply to maintain a couple of jobs.

Unions are only now being dragged kicking and screaming into technology and automation. They have been part of the problem - not the solution. Ten years ago, unions had a tremendous opportunity to work with management to find ways to increase productivity. Who better to participate than the workers who actually do the job? Instead, unions continue to frown on workers who exceed quotas or work too fast. There is no incentive to do a better job than the next guy - everything is geared to the lowest common denominator. Instead of raising all boats, unions drain the harbour.

It's sad.

[Hydraboss]

Ten years ago, unions had a tremendous opportunity to work with management to find ways to increase productivity. Who better to participate than the workers who actually do the job? Instead, unions continue to frown on workers who exceed quotas or work too fast. There is no incentive to do a better job than the next guy - everything is geared to the lowest common denominator. Instead of raising all boats, unions drain the harbour.

Correct. Unions had their place, but that was a very long time ago. Now the only job of the union is to ensure the survival of the union.

I have no idea. Nor do I care. I am not a manager. Efficiency is thier department.

This is a perfect quote to support Keepitsimple's statement above.

[madmax]

Unions are only now being dragged kicking and screaming into technology and automation. They have been part of the problem - not the solution. Ten years ago, unions had a tremendous opportunity to work with management to find ways to increase productivity. Who better to participate than the workers who actually do the job? Instead, unions continue to frown on workers who exceed quotas or work too fast. There is no incentive to do a better job than the next guy - everything is geared to the lowest common denominator. Instead of raising all boats, unions drain the harbour.

It's sad.

Union shops have been the most automated and productive and every goddamn study ever made demonstrates that fact. However, Union employees get bigger piece of the pie. Every Study shows that as well.

Corporations do not like to share.

Any company in Canada since NAFTA has been lean and mean, union or not, and attrition has been the norm, as it always has been throughout history. However, while some form of employment decreases a new form increases. That also hasn't changed.

The changes today are that these lean mean shops with competitive workforces, and technological backgrounds can easily be transplanted to overseas production.

Its an unstoppable fact as long as their are open trade agreements.

Regardless, other technologies that have come into play in the last 15 years, in which workforces/places have changed so much, the structure to create a union and achieve some kind of benefit, do not exist or are difficult to create.

Thus many within the huge computer industry experienced boom and bust of the 90s... however, this decade has allowed for all computer driven operations and technological operations to be done from offshore, including the service industries.

HR managements positions etc can all be farmed out. North American companies have their entire HR run from Central America.

This isn't about a Union or non union thing... however. I'd say that unions are far behind in recruiting, or organizing the new workplace.

Other then that... an non union shop suffers the same global pressures as a union shop.

Automated shops particularly non union have suffered huge losses in employment in Canada. The reason... THEIR AUTOMATED... and thus EASY to relocate to areas where the workforce their is an unskilled workforce able to carve out a living on 60cents to $2 per hour.

Considering all the places I see that are non union that are relocating to 3rd world countries, the only thing I can tell that is different, is the level to which they are being screwed over by their employer as they close the doors.

I see some stereotypical observations... but considering the hundreds of places and the hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs....

alot more has to do with the price of offshore labour, the deregulated energy market which drove up costs, and the dependance on a low dollar, unlike the 60s where Canadas, Highly skilled workforce and strong manufacturing background lured companies to the region and the higher dollar was not an issue.

[madmax]

Correct. Unions had their place, but that was a very long time ago. Now the only job of the union is to ensure the survival of the union.

and to what purpose, as Unions were defanged by governments long ago....

[Topaz]

I agree there may be big bad unions but at the same time there are bigger and badder companies that are out to break the unions and plan to go from paying benefits, reasonable wages etc. down 10-12 $ range. The private unions are on the way out because the companies want more profits within North America and so I they want the workers to get the same pay as Third World workers and Mexico. IF this happens it will affect our economy because who can afford a house or education for their family on that wage. There will be no more MIDDLE-INCOME earner, or very little left. I think the future doesn't look as bright for the middle income or even the high income earners because the government will have to get the taxes from them.

[Molly]

If someone is too important to allow them to strike, how can they not be important enough to be paid well?

Who says they aren't?

[August1991]

CUPE Local 416 president Mark Ferguson said today that the union fought back all of the concessions the city had sought but one councillor says that if that is true, Mayor David Miller has some explaining to do.

Ferguson wouldn't give specifics of the tentative deal reached with the city early today, but said that the support of his members gave the "bargaining committee the ability to fight back all of the concessions," the city sought.

"As I have said from the beginning, we will end this strike like we began," he told a news conference this morning at the Scarborough hotel where his local's negotiation took place.

Pat Daley, a spokesperson for Local 416, backed up Ferguson's statement that the union had managed to "fight back all of the concessions the city sought from us."

All 118 pages of concessions? she was asked.

"Yes," she said.

Toronto Star

In Canada, about 75% of public (government) sector employees are unionized and this percentage is rising. In the private sector, about 25% of employees are unionized and this percentage is falling. Increasingly, unionization is about the public sector, government employees.

When we talk about unions in Canada, we are largely talking about people who offer public services, monopoly services available through no other means. A public sector union is a monopoly with access to everyone's wallet through various taxes.

Mikhail Gorbachev, and Tony Blair, understood that this has to stop somewhere.

Edited July 27, 2009 by August1991

[Machjo]

My issue with labour unions is that they're too confrontational and not collaborative enough. Not conducive to firendly labour-management relations. As far as I'm concerned, labour unions should have no legal recognition whatsoever, neither legal nor illegal. Simply that if workers walk off the job, they're breaking their contract.

Now, I could agree with giving workers voting rights on a company's board of directors, as is done in Germany, but even without that, labour unions should get no legal recognition whatsoever. Unionization is just organized thuggery in my opinion.

And as for their being staunch defenders of 'socialism', BS. Modern labour unions are about as capitalist as they come, seeing striking as nothing more than a free-market means to a higher salary.

[Machjo]

Also, I'd be open to the idea of some government monopolies being gradually privatized as consumers co-ops, thus ensuring that consumers have a direct vote on the board of directors and no longer giving the unions direct access to public funds.

[Alta4ever]

Also, I'd be open to the idea of some government monopolies being gradually privatized as consumers co-ops, thus ensuring that consumers have a direct vote on the board of directors and no longer giving the unions direct access to public funds.

How about we just de unionize the public services?

[Machjo]

How about we just de unionize the public services?

Wouldn't removing all official and legal recognition for unions do just that? Since unions would no longer exist in the law, it would mean that striking empoyees would be braking their contracts and so would risk getting fired, not to mention there would be no legally recognized union to negotiate with.

Also, some systems could go on a voucher system. Example, school vouchers at the provincial level. Seeing that even Sweden, a renowned social democratic country, uses school vouchers, I don't see why even the NDP could be convinced of going for that. And seeing that republicans in the US support school vouchers too, i'ts clear that it could be a non-partisan issue. After all, Sweden and the US are as opposite of the political spectrum as democracies get.

[August1991]

My issue with labour unions is that they're too confrontational and not collaborative enough.

Machjo, you don't get it.

Unions in Canada are largely in the public sector, and these public sector unions are growing. Canada no longer has (or has fewer) private sector unions.

So Machjo, it is no wonder that you view "unions" as confrontational. They are bullies who seek to extort the most out of taxpayers through our democratic representatives. IOW, governments have the power to tax and public sector unions abuse this power.

We once faced a similar problem with postal workers until the Internet and email came along. Fedex and outsourcing to drug stores helped partly but the Internet really made postal strikes pointless.

The State is a monopoly and unions naturally gravitate to monopolies.

[madmax]

When we talk about unions in Canada, we are largely talking about people who offer public services, monopoly services available through no other means. A public sector union is a monopoly with access to everyone's wallet through various taxes.

This is the biggest difference between Public and Private sector Unions. Public Sector Unions have also had the benefit of a hyper public who cannot handle being inconvienced on the government services provided.

A strike/lockout (IMHO) is a failure. That failure should result in pressures to resolve the deadlock. In a public sector strike, those pressures should be "An agitated and pissed off public who want services back" and then they lash out at the parties involved to resolve the issue. That negative factor is applied to the government, they rarely look good in these circumstances, and upon the union. This creates the lose lose situations we often see in these disputes. Eventually they get resolved and the public moves on and forgets.

However, many people even on MLW and Babble suggest that there should be no strikes allowed, like many "essential" services like the Police have. Yes the Police are Unionized and they cannot strike. The process without a strike and without public backlash, leads to a situation where Wages and Benefits can only go up, and there is little cost or worry to these civil servants are the bargaining process is under little pressure from outside, no one is watching, and the resolutions come from the Province and they don't pay. It is often the municipality that has to foot the Bill, and find out how to pay for the latest package.

What the Garbage strike has highlighted is that these public servants receive what all public servants receive. I wouldn't be surprised if Argus , in his comfy government job, doesn't have bankable sick days. Same for Police, Firefighters, and various office staff. Many of the personal benefits that a private sector workforce can only dream of.

Many of the benefits received in the public sector are the result of rulings during labour contracts, without having to strike to obtain them. Who said these packages were out of line???

So, now, with a service that is only "Essential" when the pope is coming to town, we, the public see what this dispute is about, or we get a small snippet of a singular issue.

McGuinty could have chosen to end this at anytime, however, he probably like seeing Miller and the Unions getting a black eye. Back to Work legislation can work in the Unions favour.

I laughed when a cop said, he wished they had the right to strike, while showing up to arrest a striker on his 11month of turning down 35% wage cuts, and getting charged for "leering" at the tinted windows of the Scab bus (Scabs who make 11% MORE then the wages they paid the Union Workers). The Union has offered 16% cuts up from 12% (which any company I am aware of would be happy to take today if offered). Infact I am certain if the Union came in offering the whole 35% cut, the company would still refuse, because their monetary goal, appears to be focused on removing the Union.

The back to work Legislation would force the Cop back to work under the current contract until a deal is reach. I am certain that the workers on Strike and would be happy to be legislated back to work at the regular wage until a contract is reached.

On the monetary side of things, companies rarely offer more then they can afford, or care to provide in wage increases. Companies rarely if ever succeed by cutting wages, because often their problems are structural, and the wage cut may only delay the inevitable by a month or two.

That is why companies that are non unionized sometimes force wage concessions then close and others don't bother because the fundamentals no longer exists to be competitive. Wages are just one small variable. Often the fluctuating dollar can eat up anysavings in a heartbeat, or provide a treasure troff of easy money.

Regardless, rarely are these economic factors involved in Public Sector Negotiations unlike Private Sector Unions.

[madmax]

DP

Edited July 27, 2009 by madmax

[madmax]

How about we just de unionize the public services?

There is no party that has that as part of their platform

[Alta4ever]

There is no party that has that as part of their platform

yet

[Jerry J. Fortin]

What if they don't want to give up the right to associate freely? What about the law that says they have the right to organize?

[Machjo]

What if they don't want to give up the right to associate freely? What about the law that says they have the right to organize?

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.