Category Archives: Labour Movement

Supreme Court hearing arguments on Saskatchewan labour laws

Posted on by
Essential services legislation, changes to Trade Union Act in dispute

CBC News Posted: May 16, 2014

Labour groups squared off against the Saskatchewan government and business at the Supreme Court of Canada today in a dispute over changes to Saskatchewan’s labour laws proposed in 2008.

The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour says Bill 5, Saskatchewan’s essential services law, and Bill 6, which involves changes to the former Trade Union Act, are in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The essential services law restricts which public sector workers can walk off the job during a strike.

The Saskatchewan government says it’s similar to laws in effect in other provinces and will be used to ensure public safety during labour disruptions. However, unions say the law makes it possible to declare so many employees “essential” that it undercuts their ability to bargain collectively.

Unions also say the Trade Union Act changes make it tougher to form unions in the first place, by raising the threshold of voting workers required to get a certification vote and by eliminating automatic certification in cases where 50 per cent of workers sign union cards in favour of secret ballot votes in all cases where the threshold is met.

The province says the changes make the laws more democratic and ensure public safety.

The unions had a partial victory at the Court of Queen’s Bench level when a judge ruled in their favour on essential services, but the Appeal Court of Saskatchewan reversed that and dismissed both their cases.

The Supreme Court of Canada is expected to hear arguments for and against why the right to strike should be enshrined as a Charter-protected right. 

In addition to the Saskatchewan participants in the case, labour groups, provincial governments and businesses from across Canada are intervening in the challenge.

Think Hard or Hardly Thinking? Target’s Anti-Union Propaganda

Posted on by

By Jason Edwards     http://rankandfile.ca

A video made for employees of Target, titled “Think Hard: Protect Your Signature,” warning employees about the potential perils of signing a union support card, has been shared widely online as of late. Many viewers have greeted it as an entertaining (yet infuriating) example of the condescending, misleading, and “cheesy” way big business is trying to convey its anti-union message to workers.  Indeed, there is some sweet irony in putting “Think Hard” in the title of a film rife with falsehoods.

As a weapon in this notoriously anti-union employer’s wage-depression arsenal, this short video is an opportunity. It is an example of both the specific talking-points used by employers to discourage organizing and the general assumptions employers harbour concerning low-wage and precarious workers.

Labour activists should take this opportunity to make an appraisal of the narrative we create when building support for collective action. The video should be treated by activists not just as a long, patronizing comedy sketch, but as a primer on employer propaganda and how it can be overcome with honest, accurate information. With that in mind I will critically examine the four major themes of the video.

“Us Against Them”

The strongest underlying theme conveyed by this video is that a union would be a third party, and that the relationship between Target and its employees is one of openness, reciprocity, and respect. On one side, an image is painted of rigid rules passed down by writ from self-interested union dictators. On the other is a “partner, standing by to help you out”.

Fortunately, this narrative—a real life example of Orwellian doublespeak—is wholly untrue.

Unions, while not perfect, are far more democratic than any employer could be. The vast majority of union representatives, from the shop stewards on the work floor all the way to the leadership, are elected. The members who sit across the table from the employer in bargaining are elected.  Contracts are subject to the approval of the majority of the membership, as are strikes.  This means the “union rules” that Target would have us so afraid of are rules that members have pushed their bargaining committee to negotiate for.  Union finances are largely open to scrutiny from members, and there are myriad avenues for members to get involved and influence the trajectory of the union. When a union is functioning well, the membership is not only in control of the union, it IS the union.

Representatives and employees of the union are directly responsible to the organization’s members. In fact, as the Target video so helpfully points out, unions are legally obliged to work in the interest of their members, and if they fail to do so, members can seek legal recourse in the form of a duty of fair representation complaint.

For their part, how democratic are employers, especially large retail chains like Target?  Are managers accountable to employees?  Are their rules voted on, reaching assent only when a majority of employees approve?  Are their rules applied equally to both sides of the employment relationship? Is Target legally obligated to work in the interest of its employees?

The answer to all of these questions is a resounding “no”. Target’s only obligation is to its shareholders; to make them money by keeping costs, like wages, down. It is not surprising that Target doesn’t want to have to follow a set of rules, agreed to by employees, that govern the way it treats workers.

“There are no guarantees”

Another prevalent theme in Target’s propaganda video is its insistence that forming a union means venturing into uncharted territory. “They’re making promises they may not ever be able to keep.” The existence of this uncertainty is somewhat true.

There is only one guarantee that workers have when forming a union: their bargaining power will improve. They will have a collective voice, supported by the infrastructure of an organization whose primary objective is to improve wages and working conditions.

As a collective unit, working people will always be in a stronger position relative to their employer than as individuals. A stronger bargaining position doesn’t guarantee any particular wage rate or other condition of employment (unless signing onto an established collective agreement), but it does make improvements possible that would otherwise not be.

“Dues! Dues! Dues!”

While they aren’t concerned when employees join bowling leagues or buy groceries, Target seems incredibly interested in its employees’ “hard earned paycheque” when it comes to paying union dues.

Target has an army of lawyers and business professionals whose jobs are to keep costs as low as possible on things like wages and workplace safety.

Why shouldn’t its employees have access to the same infrastructure? By pooling resources, working people can obtain the tools needed to win and enforce workplace improvements. Dues pay for the offices, administrators, business people, and lawyers that work on behalf of members.

What’s more, dues are entirely tax deductible. That means that every penny paid into the union from members is returned to them when they file their taxes. In effect, members receive all the benefits of being in a union at no cost.

Among these half-truths and omissions, the video comes close to telling a flat-out lie when it states, “You may find yourself unionized and paying dues without ever getting a chance to vote.” This could hardly be more untrue. While the process varies between jurisdictions, generally, a large number of workers need to sign support cards, then vote “yes” for the union, then elect their bargaining committee, then vote “yes” for a collective agreement—all before a single penny is paid in dues.

Finally, it is no surprise that Target does not mention the union wage premium.  Across Canada, union workers make an average of about $5.00/hour more than non-union workers. The corresponding number for Ontario is more than $6.00, and for Nova Scotia more than $6.25. Non-union workers are effectively paying massive “dues”—in the form of lower wages—without receiving any benefits.

“Things are Good”

Target’s video spends an inordinate amount of time trying to convince employees that they love their jobs.  Aside from the “fast” part, the “fun, fast, and friendly” atmosphere that is endlessly repeated in the video is a fiction. Statistically , the majority of retail employees experience very low job satisfaction. A cursory glance at ratemyemployer.ca or one of the many retail worker blogs shows why: working retail sucks. The work is demanding, the hours are crummy, and you’re stuck between cranky customers and demanding managers. It may be fast, but it is hardly fun and friendly.

Target wants its employees to adopt this fiction and believe that if they organized into a union they would be sacrificing the “fast, fun, and friendly” atmosphere. With a union, the workplace would certainly change: breaks would be respected, scheduling would be less sporadic, expectations would be more reasonable, and labour standards would be abided by.

Conclusion

The above are only four central themes of this video, embedded in its glaring disdain for worker agency and ability. It offers many more omissions, half-truths, and mischaracterizations about unions and employment relationships that are trumpeted by most employers who seek to expel any tendency for workers to organize. Each of the talking points provides labour activists with an opportunity. Armed with information, organizers can attack these arguments for what they are: falsehoods designed to scare workers into staying in a position of weakness vis-à-vis their employers. Activists seeking to win fair wages and better working conditions from employers can use this video to heed Target’s ironic advice: “think hard”.

Union women work to shatter labour’s glass ceiling

Posted on by

By H.G. Watson     December 4, 2013   http://rabble.ca

Photo: flickr/Ian Sane

The labour movement’s female ranks are growing, but women are still struggling to have their voices heard and to fill executive positions.

“Sadly, I still find myself in the trenches,” said Yolanda McClean, the Diversity Vice-President of CUPE, speaking at the microphones during the women’s forum at the Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) convention.

Women, even in unionized workplaces, face workplace harassment and income inequality.

For those that might consider leadership positions, there are still barriers in the way of taking executive roles at the local or national levels — including a lack of available childcare and mentoring — despite the fact that there are more women unionized than ever before.

A recent Globe and Mail article found that the rate of men who are unionized is dropping while rates for women have held steady. The losses for men is found in the declining manufacturing sector while unionization rates in health care, education and public administration — industries largely dominated by women — have grown.

Men still take up many of the top positions in labour unions and councils, a situation that has certainly not gone unnoticed by union sisters. At the Unifor founding convention in August, Lindsay Hinshelwood, a member of the former CAW local 707 in Oakville, Ontario, ran against Jerry Dias to challenge what she called the “old boys club” of leadership.

“Traditional power structures still exist within the labour movement which is really unfortunate,” said Nicole Wall, a Toronto based regional representative of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

She, along with her mother, labour activist Carol Wall, sat on a panel about the challenges women face in the labour movement last Tuesday at the OFL convention.

They were joined by Katie Arnup, a national representative for communications at Unifor, Sue Genge, who was formerly with the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and Michele Landsberg, a journalist who has written extensively on labour issues.

Landsberg recounted that when she attempted to write a story about maternity leaves many years ago, she was laughed off the phone by many of the union leaders when she asked if they would include leave provisions in collective agreements.

“I’ve heard a woman say that she ran for an elected position and she was told she’d get in trouble with her union supervisor because they didn’t want a woman running,” she said.

If there is anyone who knows the challenges of becoming not only active in labour, but a leader, it would be Nancy Hutchison. The secretary-treasurer of the OFL was the first woman to work in the gold mine in the Campbell Red Lake Mine in 1977. Hutchison became the president of her union local, and eventually rose through the ranks of the United Steelworkers to take a place on their national executive as the Canadian National Health, Safety and Environment Department Leader.

“Very rarely will a sister come up and say, ‘it’s my first year working here and I want to be involved in the union,'” she said. “It’s up to us to look for [leadership] qualities.”

Mentorship opportunities and access to childcare were two of the key barriers she identified for women who may consider running for leadership positions.

At the OFL convention, there were several impassioned speeches in support of a universal childcare system. Others also advocated for maternity leaves to be included in collective agreements — a situation that they argue benefits families overall, not just women.

But according to Landsberg, union culture has to become more inclusive — or risk disappearing altogether.

“The union movement has done amazing things for changing the scene for women externally,” she said, noting that unions supported Charter challenges that helped secure the right to choice.

“But internally, they haven’t done as much and they have to because that is the future of unionizing –they need the women or they are gone.”

Where Did Our Rights Come From? The Rand Formula and the Struggle for Union Security

Posted on by

http://www.unifor.org

Nov 20, 2013

Today our basic rights to freedom of association, democratic representation in the workplace, and free collective bargaining may be easy to take for granted as having always been with us. But these rights didn’t just happen. They weren’t gifts from enlightened employers or kindly governments!

At a time when powerful corporations and their friends in government are trying to roll back the clock on workers’ rights, we have much to learn from the inspiring, and often untold, stories of the workers and activists who fought for the rights we enjoy today, and won.

You can also download the various components of the book as individual files:

Document

Where Did Our Rights Come From? The Rand Formula and the Struggle for Union Security

Georgetti: The Tories Attack on the Middle Class Should Worry You

Posted on by

Ken GeorgettiKen Georgetti    President, Canadian Labour Congress

12/04/2013   http://www.huffingtonpost.ca

The Conservative government is engaged in a campaign to distract their supporters from a series of Senate scandals and cover ups. The Conservative fundraising machine believes that if it feeds its base a constant diet of someone to dislike, the donation cheques will keep rolling in. Workers and their unions are their current targets with a long list of legislation designed to keep their base happy.

The Conservative government’s recent volleys against workers and their unions will only serve to undercut the well-being and security of middle-class families in Canada if they succeed in pushing through their anti-union legislation. The Globe and Mail said as much in a recent series of articles on growing inequality in Canada — “declining unionization has contributed to wage inequality.”

Canada’s labour movement is not just about decent jobs, it’s about a better life for everyone. Unions have worked to protect good jobs, make workplaces safer, fought for paid vacation time, public health insurance and the Canada Pension Plan. When union members stand up for fairness everyone benefits — whether you belong to a union or not.

Canadians will see through the government’s attempts to divide people against one another. At one end of the legislative spectrum, the government uses giant omnibus bills to throw everything but the kitchen sink into one piece of legislation. The current budget bill runs to 308 pages and in the fine print it makes sudden and dramatic changes to the Canada Labour Code. One of those changes would place workers’ lives at risk by eroding their right to refuse dangerous work.

Other amendments to federal labour laws would erode workers’ constitutional right to bargain collectively by letting the government unilaterally, without negotiation, change the rules for bargaining with their employees. To add insult to injury, witnesses to the parliamentary committee studying the bill who would speak out against the changes were deliberately scheduled to testify after the deadline for the committee to make amendments passed.

What is the government really trying to fix here? We know that well over 99 per cent of all collectively bargained contracts in Canada result in an agreement rather than a strike or lockout. There was no consultation with any of the parties affected by this proposed legislation, and changing the rules without consultation and negotiation is simply heavy-handed and unfair. Given the Supreme Court of Canada will soon rule on very similar legislation introduced by the Saskatchewan government, the ideological cousins of this government, it’s also premature.

At the other end of the legislative spectrum, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) is offending parliamentary tradition by using its influence to introduce Private Member’s Bills and to force their passage. That is what happened with Bill C-377, an unconstitutional piece of legislation that will force labour organizations (but no one else) to undertake costly and time consuming reporting of even the most minute of financial transactions.

Bill C-377 was supposedly the initiative of backbench Conservative MP Russ Hiebert but we know that special interest groups met frequently with the PMO, including the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff Nigel Wright, and the PMO exerted pressure in order for the bill to pass.

The senate found Bill C-377 to be so offensive that it was sent back to the House of Commons in June with numerous amendments. But then the Prime Minister shut down Parliament and Bill C-377 is now going to be sent to the senate all over again. Bill C-377 is ideologically-motivated and aimed at wasting union members’ money and it is not needed. Our members already have access to financial information about the unions to which they belong.

Bill C-525, another Private Member’s Bill put forward by a Conservative MP, would make it nearly impossible for workers in the federally-regulated sector to join a union. The bill would consider workers who don’t bother to vote in a certification vote as casting “no” ballots on having a union. That’s not democratic — giving those who don’t vote control over those who do. If those rules applied to electing MPs, Parliament would be empty. One set of rules for Conservatives and a different set for workers — that’s unfair.

Finally, the recent Conservative Party convention in Calgary passed a number of aggressively anti-worker resolutions. One of them would allow some workers to stop paying union dues but still receive all the benefits that the union negotiates – all at the expense of their coworkers who do pay their dues. Leave it to ethically-challenged Conservatives, counselling people that it’s okay to dine and dash at a restaurant while leaving others at your table to pay the bill. That’s unfair and it’s a recipe for conflict and disruption in the workplace.

This government puts its extreme ideology ahead of all other considerations, but Canadians see these bullying tactics for what they are. The CLC and its affiliates ran a television advertising campaign during October and November 2013. We talked directly to Canadians about the positive role that the labour movement plays in our society. The response to our campaign has been overwhelmingly positive from both union members and the public at large. That response and our polling shows that we are on the side of the vast majority of Canadians. They will support a labour movement that works in the interest of fairness for everyone.

Ken Georgetti is president of the 3.3 million member Canadian Labour Congress.