Tortorella Has To Be True To His Coaching Style….Just Saying….

Canucks have to out work, out play, out shoot, out hit, and out chance their opponent’s both at home and on the road. Unrealistic? Ye of little faith.

By Andrew Chernoff       September 11, 2013Just-saying

While all eyes may be on Roberto Luongo for the first few days of training camp that started today, new coach John Tortorella has to do what he does best and which helped Tampa Bay to its first Stanley Cup—be the best coach he can be and get the most out of his players, letting every player know that he is boss,

The players are paid to execute the plan and perform as professionals. Tortorella will be accountable for being outcoached and for misjudgements regarding his assessments regarding each players abilities, capabilities, to execute the plan that he has developed to make the Canucks successful in all areas; and the players will be accountable for not executing that coaching plan, and playing up to that high level of expectation.

The question I had for myself, and others I talked to about the Canucks during the summer hiatus was, is this season a retooling season for the Canucks or a rebuilding year.

The Canucks are in a tough division:

How the team comes out of training camp, and which players make up the roster after the first few games of the season, will help to determine whether it is a retooling or rebuilding year; and if the decisions made by Mr. Gillis in the off season were made wisely.

I am not confident that they have the speed, finesse, the toughness or the depth to match or better most of the teams in their division or in the league at this point of training camp.

I will hold my thoughts of how well the Canucks might size up against the teams in their division, and whether they will make the playoffs until they have played their first month.

My pessimistic side says to wait until the end of January, 2014 to see if the Canucks take a nosedive and their more often than not “seasonal slump” or whether they defy the odds and play at least .500 or better and make a strong playoff run to finish the season on a high note.

I will not wait that long. I will give it 15 games.

canucks20132014a

Canucks will play seven road game stretch on the road from October 15 to October 25 which will indicate what their mettle is and how well forged they are as a competitive team and excelling at that high level of expectation or not.

Canucks have to out work, out play, out shoot, out hit, and out chance their opponent’s both at home and on the road. Unrealistic? Ye of little faith.

Tom Fletcher, Tell Us About Your Private Employment Benefits

By Andrew Chernoff   September 4, 2013   Just-saying

Tom Fletcher, legislative reporter and columnist for BCLocalNews.com, in his article, “BCViews: Back To School Labour Disputes” demonstrates a great job of being able to read a collective agreement with respect to the Central Okanagan school district.

He outlines specific features of the collective agreement. That’s all he does, suggesting it goes on and on as he picks and chooses what to single out and take issue with.

At no time does Mr. Fletcher practice his journalism, if he has any to demonstrate, because he does not compare a transparent public document that is easy to pick apart, with any private employment benefits or so called “contract”.

If Mr. Fletcher was worth any salt as a “journalist”, he would have done a credible, and transparent article, with a proper comparison and contrast for the reader to read and come to their own opinion about rather than to take his less than credible, weak, less than valid opinion as the gospel truth.

I dare Mr. Fletcher to rewrite his Grade 1 attempt of a column, illustrating the components of his private employment “contract” and benefits, letting his readers compare his with the Central Okanagan collective agreement, then maybe he and readership can actually start a frank discussion on a level playing field so-to-speak.

Or will Mr. Fletcher use the privacy and confidentiality card and squirm away from having to put all his cards on the table and fold?

Lowering our standards for workers’ rights

By Trish Hennessy   September 3, 2013   http://rabble.ca

Missouri rallies against Right to Work & corporate greed. Photo: Jobs with Justi

The right-wing Fraser Institute has released a paper that, if implemented, would dramatically lower our standards for worker pay, workers’ rights and workplace protections.

It urges governments in Ontario and B.C. to adopt American-style “right-to-work” (RTW) laws which violate a core principle upheld in Canadian law: if a majority of workers in a workplace vote to form a union, everyone should be a member and pay dues — because all workers in that workplace benefit from the gains made by the union in their workplace.

Effectively, it would undermine unions’ right to organize in Canada.

It also promotes the right-wing frame of the day: “worker choice”. That’s the language the Fraser Institute is touting in its latest paper. The frame is an American import; an expression of the oft-touted freedom values in that country. It’s Orwellian language, really, because what we’ve witnessed under similar anti-worker laws in the U.S. is that workers there have far fewer options, worse working conditions and lower pay.

Here’s the harsh reality of workers who live in American states that have implemented such anti-worker laws:

–  The average worker in RTW states earns $1,540 less a year than workers who live in states with more robust worker protection laws;

–  Median household income is $6,437 less ($46,402 vs. $52,839);

–  The percentage of jobs in low-wage occupations is higher (26.7 per cent vs. 19.5 per cent);

–  Poverty rates are higher (15.3 per cent vs. 13.1 per cent);

–  More infants die (infant mortality rates are 15 per cent higher);

–  And more workers die in the workplace (36 per cent higher).

Learn more about the harmful effects of RTW laws in the U.S. here.

Clearly, this is not the direction we should be advising our governments to head towards. But the Fraser Institute’s latest volley is part of a strategic, concerted effort among right-wing groups in Canada to launch wave after wave of assaults on this country’s labour movement following the great disruption of the 2008-09 global economic recession.

Ontario is proving to be one of the major testing grounds for this concerted effort. Shortly after the Ontario government plunged into deficit as a result of recession — coupled with some of its own questionable decisions, such as ORNG and cancelled gas plant projects — right-wingers started in with a major blamestorming campaign to pin the deficit on unionized workers.

The fact of the matter is that polling reflects the majority of Canadians believe unions effectively improve the salaries and working conditions of Canadian employees; they believe that unions are necessary and important in society.

The goal of the right-wing narrative in Canada is to stir resentment, to pit workers against workers, to erode the public’s support for this legitimate public institution.

The Fraser Institute’s most recent paper would take Ontario back to a world where corporate giants could exploit workers with impunity, because workers on their own lack the resources to do much about it. They are powerless.

As this Toronto Star editorial aptly states, the labour movement plays an important role in our society: “Business may not welcome it, but organized labour is a well-established force for social good — one that has raised the standard of living of a great many of us. Statistics Canada rightly counts union membership as a key ‘indicator of well-being’ and it rose last year. About 31.5 per cent of employees were represented by a union, up from 31.2 per cent in 2011.”

In Ontario, 28 per cent of all employees belong to a union. As the Canadian Labour Congress calculated, their weekly payroll amounts to more than $1.7 billion — a third of the total provincial payroll. “On average, unionized workers earned $6.11/hour more than non-union employees. That union advantage translated into $351.6 million more every week paid into local economies to support local businesses and community services.”

That union advantage contributes to all Ontarians’ economic well-being.

By urging Ontario to emulate American states that embrace anti-worker laws, the Fraser Institute is prescribing a race to the bottom. Contrary to the Fraser Institute’s claim that it would benefit Ontario’s economy, research from the Economic Policy Institute shows the reality in American RTW states has been exactly the opposite of what advocates had promised.

Implementing anti-worker laws would slow down Ontario’s economy, because once workers earn less, they spend less — and right now it’s workers who are propping up economic growth by spending locally.

It would put more workers in dire straights, because they’d lose protections that unions secured for all workers generations ago.

It would weaken workers’ rights, making it harder for a worker to turn down unsafe work.

It would turn back the clock to the days before Ontario had a stable middle class.

It would return Ontario to the days in the late-1800s and early-1900s where worker strife led to work stoppages, strikes, and labour unrest.

We’ve come too far to turn back now. Our standards are, and will continue to be, higher than that. We are all worth more.

Trish Hennessy is director of the CCPA Ontario office, located in Toronto. The CCPA Ontario will be posting a compendium of papers to help inform workers about the benefits of the Rand Formula and the current assault on workers’ rights.

Photo: Jobs with Justice/flickr

The best defence is a good offence: Lessons from Canadian labour history

By Mark Leier   September 3, 2013   http://rabble.ca

Workers in Saint John, NB on strike, Oct. 1976. (Photo: Frank & Ella Hatheway Labour Exhibit Centre)

Contemporary labour activists might find inspiration in the history of Labour Day. It isn’t a simple lesson of how to fight for a statutory holiday. It is a broader one about the nature of political struggle, reform and militancy.

The federal government created the holiday in 1894, and the labour movement deserves the credit for it. But Labour Day was not something labour specifically struggled for and won. The real significance of the holiday is in the broader struggle that pushed the government to make concessions and in a movement that dared to aim high.

The formal request for a holiday to celebrate labour came in 1889 in the report of the Royal Commission on the Relations of Labour and Capital. The commission produced five volumes of testimony and analysis and dozens of recommendations. These ranged from separate factory washrooms for men and women to arbitration boards to shorter hours to better regulation of railways and the oil industry. Among the recommendations was the suggestion “that one day in the year, to be known as Labour Day, be set apart as a holiday by the Government.”

None of the recommendations were taken up by the government of the day. Workers continued to celebrate Labour Day and May Day without the benefit of a statutory holiday, as they had for years. Five years and two prime ministers later, Labour Day was proclaimed, but it is not clear that the government had consulted the report of the Royal Commission. What is clear is that the government was responding to a wave of worker militancy, strikes and radicalism.

By 1886, when John A. Macdonald created the Royal Commission, workers had made the “labour question” the most important issue of the day. It was not an abstract question. It was impressed upon the minds of politicians and capitalists by workers across North America who used strikes and street protests with increasing frequency and militancy.

1872 saw the movement for the nine-hour workday culminate in a Toronto printers’ strike and several thousand workers marching in the streets in support. In the U.S., the railway strike of 1877 broke out in several states and mobilized tens of thousands of workers who engaged in running battles with police, state militia and federal troops in what became known as the Great Upheaval.

The 1880s saw even more strikes; 425 took place in Canada, double the number of the previous decade. Workers formed new unions, federations and councils; the Vancouver Trades and Labour Council, for example, was created in 1889 to provide a single, strong voice for the city’s workers.

Perhaps most worrisome to the authorities was the growth of the Knights of Labor, which organized not just the skilled trades, but all workers, including women. Pierre Berton’s grandfather, Phillips Thompson, was a Knight of Labor and in his book, The Politics of Labor, published in 1887, he warned “capitalism is a wrong, an usurpation, and a growing menace to popular freedom.”

In language that is echoed by the Occupy movement, Thompson pointed out that “the poverty of the many is caused by the unearned, and therefore stolen, wealth of the few.”

At the same time, workers engaged in political action, supporting those Liberals and Conservatives who supported labour and running their own candidates. In B.C., four “workingmen’s candidates” ran in the 1886 provincial election. One of the candidates was Samuel Myers, a miner and a Knight of Labor, who ran against the infamous coal baron Robert Dunsmuir. Myers lost the election and the following year would lose his life in a Nanaimo coal mine explosion that killed 147 workers.

This rising militancy pushed Macdonald to launch the investigation into the relations of labour and capital.

In his view, the “labour question” prompted by the Knights of Labor was as critical a political issue as Louis Riel, temperance, and Irish Home Rule.

By 1894, the creation of Labour Day was almost an afterthought, the belated recognition of the fact of the growing and increasingly radical labour movement across Canada and the U.S.

What is clear from this is that changes in the law, including holidays, come as a response to labour’s militancy, not as a reward for workers staying quiet. Labour influences the political agenda when it is active in the streets, the workplace and the ballot box, when it develops new tactics and forms of organization, and when it poses alternatives to “business as usual.”

It is not so clear that the union leadership has always grasped this lesson. It has usually been the radical edge of the labour movement that created new movements and organized new constituencies, from the Knights of Labor to the Industrial Workers of the World to the Communist Party and the early CCF, to the Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers (CAIMAW) to the Service, Office and Retail Workers’ Union of Canada (SORWUC) and to contemporary rank and file activists.

But too often these dissident movements have been purged from the so-called main house of labour. Without that creative rebel energy, new ideas and new directions rarely emerge.

If strike activity is an indication of militancy, then Canadian labour has lost momentum.

In 1919, when the population of Canada was about 8.3 million, worker-days on strike totaled 3,401,843. In 2011, with a population of 33.4 million, worker-days on strike totaled only 1,966,587. More recently, Canadians spent 10.6 hours on the picket line in 1976; in 2011, that was down to a single hour.

During that same period, governments have made it harder for unions to organize, wages have stagnated, the minimum wage is worth less than it was 35 years ago, the working day has lengthened, social benefits have declined and employers have been successful in decertification drives across the country.

No one likes strikes, and 2013 is not 1976 or 1919. Nonetheless, one lesson from the history of Labour Day may be that the best defence is a good offence.

Mark Leier is a historian at Simon Fraser University. The second revised edition of his book, Rebel Life: The Life and Times of Robert Gosden, Revolution, Mystic, Labour Spy, will be published by New Star Books later this month. He will give a talk on the book at Simon Fraser University’s Harbour Centre on Sept. 19. For more details, click here.

This article was originally published by The Tyee, and is reprinted here with permission.

Following our extensive coverage of the founding convention of Unifor, this week we continue our coverage with a focus on the labour movement’s future. 

Photo: Frank & Ella Hatheway Labour Exhibit Centre