Category Archives: unions

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”.

Your Boss Is a Dick (A Glossary of Labor Terms, Translated)

Posted on by

How to win arguments and lose friends.

January 3, 2014 | http://www.alternet.org 

This article originally appeared on Truthdig, and is reprinted here with their permission.

* * *

Editor’s note: In light of recent tensions between progressives and their allies in the union movement, comedian and former labor organizer Nato Green was moved to write this humorous glossary. Please don’t take it literally.

Whenever there’s a big labor news story, I’m deluged with calls from friends who, like most Americans, are vaguely sympathetic to unions but don’t know much about them. Corporate media reliably provide the hard-hitting investigative journalism one expects from a Bazooka Joe gum wrapper. Bad enough that there are so few union members anymore that assigning a reporter to cover labor beefs makes as much sense as putting someone on the Coptic beat. And unions don’t help themselves win over the public, what with their East German approach to public relations and earnest commitment to matching T-shirts.

For example, during the 2013 Bay Area Rapid Transit strikes many liberals I know said, “I don’t have a pension or good health insurance! Why should they?” To which I would reply, “You seem pretty mad about black people having good jobs.” This is an excellent way to win an argument while losing a friend.

So to help out my friends in organized labor, here is a glossary of key union terms, translated for everyone else:

ARBITRATION: When labor and management can’t agree, the parties may submit the disputed matter to an arbitrator. The arbitrator hears both sides and issues a binding decision. Arbitrators are former lawyers who seek employment by appearing impartial to two groups of people who hate each other’s guts. They love the phrase “split the baby,” which is exactly as gross as it sounds.

BOSS: Guy at your job who doesn’t care about you. Only cares about power and money. Person with the authority to hire or fire you. Wants you to “feel like family” and dance to his favorite Van Morrison songs at the holiday party, but “will see” if you can have a raise this year. (See GOOD BOSS.)

BUILDING TRADES: Construction unions of burly men who like to drink and look a man in the eye. They’d build concentration camps if the Nazis would agree to hire their guys.

CARD CHECK: The easy way for nonunion workers to join a union. Workers just sign a union card saying they want a union. When a majority of workers sign union cards, the union presents the cards to an impartial third party, like a street juggler, who verifies that only living current employees signed. Fewer ways for the boss to hassle workers out of unionizing, which is why bosses act like card check gives them avian flu.

CONTRACT: Collectively bargained, legally enforceable, democratically ratified agreement covering wages, benefits and working conditions. At best, the union guarantees a defined period of time (usually three to five years) of no strikes in exchange for a good deal. At worst, the noble pursuit of workplace democracy is smothered by bureaucrats and lawyers like rancid mushroom gravy on apple pie.

COOLING-OFF PERIOD: Something politicians call for to act like they’re helping without having to take a risky position.

DEFINED-BENEFIT PENSION: The good kind of pension plan. This is a retirement plan in which you are guaranteed a specific amount of pay upon retirement, according to a formula 27 people understand. These are regulated and guaranteed. Because they offer workers enough security to rise above being desperate and grateful for an occasional “cake day,” bosses hate them.

DEFINED-CONTRIBUTION PENSION: This is the 401(k)-type plan, in which the boss contributes something, the workers contribute something, and then the employees are free to gamble in the stock market with their retirement just like teeny tiny Warren Buffetts. If they happen to retire in a year when their entire nest egg is swallowed in a rapacious Ponzi scheme stock bubble, that’s the magic of the market. Savor it.

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