Attack on workers buried in massive budget bill

Nov 21, 2013 11:49 AM     http://cupe.ca

CUPE is urging the federal government to have open and public debates on proposed changes to Canada’s labour laws instead of burying the policy changes in its latest omnibus budget bill.

Bill C-4 has been introduced by the Harper Conservatives as an implementation bill for the 2013/14 federal budget. Within the bill, there are dramatic changes to who can and who can’t go on strike in the federal public service. The bill also proposes changes to health and safety laws for federal workers, and workers in federally regulated sectors – such as telecommunications, air transportation, and workers on First Nation reserves.

In a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, CUPE calls for the withdrawal of all changes that impact workers’ right to strike and changes that threaten the health and safety of workers and all Canadians.

Read CUPE’s letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Health & Safety At Work Under Threat With Harper Government Bill C-4: The Budget Implementation Act

The lives of almost one million Canadian workers will be placed in danger as a result of cynical amendments that the Conservative government is making to the Canada Labour Code. Buried deep in the government’s latest budget bill tabled on October 22 are amendments to the health and safety provisions of the Code that have nothing to do with balancing the budget, and everything to do with putting workers’ lives at risk. Watch this video to learn more on how you can help stop this.

Unions plan public fight over federal labour reforms

Canadian Labour Congress says Ottawa ‘declared war’ by pushing changes without consultation

By Trinh Theresa Do, CBC News Posted: Nov 21, 2013 5:00 AM ET

Tony Clement says the labour reforms will "bring savings, streamline practices and bring them in line with other jurisdictions"

Tony Clement says the labour reforms will “bring savings, streamline practices and bring them in line with other jurisdictions”

Tony Clement on public service right to strike 9:51

Related Stories

In a sign they have all but given up on talks with the Treasury Board over labour reforms proposed in the federal government’s budget bill, union leaders say they are taking matters into their own hands.

The Canadian Labour Congress quietly met with more than 100 representatives from unions across the country this week to plot a long-term strategy to engage both the public and union members in pressuring the government to reverse its proposed labour law changes. The CLC represents more than 3 million workers across the country.

The CLC has already wrapped up a series of television ads that ran over the past six weeks. Its next step is to reach out to each of its own members in a campaign that will detail how reforms in the budget bill will affect their bargaining rights.

And then, according to CLC secretary-treasurer Hassan Yussuff, union members must appeal directly to their MPs.

“They need to, of course, take direct responsibility to how they’re going to start speaking out on behalf of their union, on behalf of themselves,” said Yussuff. “And more importantly, in terms of the gains they have made to ensure this government doesn’t take that away.”

‘Government had declared war on us’

Yussuff said this offensive strategy will become the “new normal” unless policy changes are reversed.

“I think the government had declared war on us,” he said. “We didn’t start any of these measures — the government itself has done so. I think it’s fair for us to respond to their actions.”

If passed, Bill C-4 would make sweeping changes to a number of labour laws, including the Canada Labour Code and Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Among other things, it would streamline collective bargaining by allowing the government to determine which services are essential and make it illegal for those workers to strike. In situations where 80 per cent or more of workers in a bargaining unit are designated essential, the only dispute resolution method is arbitration.

In a statement sent to CBC News, Treasury Board president Tony Clement said the Public Service Labour Relations Act is being amended to ensure that the public service is modern and affordable.

“The proposed amendments will bring savings, streamline practices and bring them in line with other jurisdictions. Our government will sit at a bargaining table on behalf of the taxpayer where the rules are fair and balanced.”

Unions were not consulted in the drafting of the reforms. Labour leaders have since tried to meet with Clement to present counter-proposals, with little success.

Robyn Benson of the Public Service Alliance of Canada recently had a meeting with Clement during which she proposed he withdraw changes from the budget bill to allow for more consultation.

She wrote on her blog afterwards, “He stated bluntly that he had no intention of consulting with us, and that he wanted all his changes in place for the next round of collective bargaining — in fact, by Christmas.”

In response, Clement tweeted, “That’s also the meeting where you claimed co-governance with Parliament. Takes ‘union boss’ to a whole new level.”

Signs Harper Is Gearing Up to Declare War on Unions

Tory tweets, convention chatter and looming legislation hint at what may be coming, say labour advocates.

By Tom Sandborn, Today, TheTyee.ca

“Just wrapped up a meeting with several staff members, at midnight. Good thing they’re not unionized!”

Federal Conservative Employment Minister Jason Kenney’s tweet was the object of some derision on social media in the early hours of Nov. 19. Although quickly deleted, the tweet’s sentiment hit a deep nerve for some trade unionists across the country — particularly those already worried about what the federal Conservatives have in mind for labour legislation in Canada.

A set of non-binding resolutions was adopted earlier this month at the federal Conservative party convention in Calgary. The resolutions include a call on government to reduce wage and benefit levels for civil servants. The resolutions also call for stripping unions of the right to use member dues to support social policy campaigns and other expenditures not part of a set of narrowly-defined workplace issues.

The resolutions, in addition to clauses in Bill C-4, the omnibus budget bill currently before Parliament, aren’t merely expressions of Conservative anti-labour sentiment; according to trade unionists and labour advocates, they signal a growing war on Canadian workers.

For one, trade unionists argue because Tony Clement, Conservative cabinet heavyweight and president of the Treasury Board, supported a resolution at the convention that calls for public-sector wage and benefit roll-backs, it suggests that the Harper majority government may be inclined to implement them.

“We’re not here to buy labour peace through caving in to every single public-sector union boss’s demands,” Clement told The Globe and Mail at the Calgary convention. “We’re not here to do that. We’re here to represent the taxpayer.”

Bob Jackson, vice president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, describes Conservative actions on labour as “an all-out declaration of war on unions, coming from the highest levels of the party.” Jackson traveled to Calgary to participate in a union-sponsored demonstration outside the Calgary Stampede Grounds where the convention took place.

“We have never encountered this level of animosity and ill will from the government before,” Jackson said in an interview. “They want to get rid of us and to strip away things we have maintained for decades.”

Fears over labour gain roll backs

Hassan Yussuff, secretary treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress, shares Jackson’s concerns about a turn to more anti-labour confrontations by the government. Yussuff said he thinks Minister Clement is “fixated” on rolling back gains that organized labour has won over the past half century.

Yussuff expressed particular concern about provisions in Bill C-4, the latest signature government omnibus budget bill, that would strip away rights from public-sector workers to refuse unsafe work. He also raised concerns about Bill C-4’s reduction of independent federal work-site safety inspections.

As well, Yussuff highlighted language in the bill that would allow the government to unilaterally define workers as “essential” during a labour dispute, a definition that has previously been negotiated between the employer and public-sector workers.

This power could conceivably allow government to define workers in a particular job setting as essential, rendering strike action impossible.

Simon Fraser University professor Marjorie Griffin-Cohen is also concerned about the Conservatives’ get tough approach to labour, as evidenced both in the Calgary resolutions and the provisions of Bill C-4. In particular, she said the right of unions to use member dues in social policy campaigns is important.

“If trade unions were not active in encouraging governments to deal in fair ways with labour issues, they would be derelict in their support of labour,” Griffin-Cohen told The Tyee via email.

“Corporate spokespeople, of course, are really objecting to labour uniting on political issues — they would much rather every individual work organization deal with their mighty power all by themselves,” she added.

Resolutions ‘not an attack on labour’: CPC activist

If the Harper government is declaring war on organized labour in Canada, John Mortimer has no apparent objections.

Mortimer, president of the Labour Watch Association and a board member of the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation, is a prominent spokesperson for Canadian conservatism who ran for Parliament in 2000 for the Canadian Alliance.

“Unionization doesn’t belong in the public sector,” Mortimer said, adding that he does not endorse any specific party because of his role in the taxpayers’ federation.

Mortimer said that Canada is the only country in the world in which unions can collect compulsory dues and spend part of what is collected to campaign on broad social issues like poverty, minimum wage levels and environmental protection.

“Look at what the Canadian Autoworkers did not so long ago. They used auto workers’ dues to bring Saint [David] Suzuki to a meeting to tell the members their industry was ‘disgusting’,” he said. “I have no issue if a union wants to donate to a party or to promote a cause, but they shouldn’t be able to use mandatory dues collected from all of their members to make those donations.”

Vancouver lawyer and Conservative Party activist Scott Lamb, a member of the party’s national council, said there was broad party support at the Calgary convention for the labour-related resolutions. He disagrees with critics who characterize them as a “war.”

“That’s not fair. We are a grassroots party,” he said in an interview. “Those resolutions came from all across the country. They were not an attack on labour.”

The business-friendly Fraser Institute recently weighed in on public sector wages in an April report that suggested public-sector workers have, on average, a 12 per cent better wage level than comparable workers in the private sector, with most of the difference due to the higher level of unionization in the public sector.

The tone of the Institute’s report suggests that it would be better for public employees to have their wages reduced than for private sector workers to earn more in order to address this disparity.

‘Social unionism’ under threat?

Since 1946, after an influential arbitration ruling by Justice Ivan Rand in an auto industry dispute, Canadian labour law has permitted unions to collect dues from all workers in a bargaining unit, whether they choose to join the union or not.

This led to government and the courts allowing unions to use dues not only for narrow job site issues, but also for campaigns, such as the BC Federation of Labour’s long-standing push to increase the minimum wage in British Columbia.

In the early 1990s, for example, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union that “the state objectives in compelling the payment of union dues which can be used to assist causes unrelated to collective bargaining are to enable unions to participate in the broader political, economic and social debates in society, and to contribute to democracy in the workplace.

“These objectives are rationally connected to the means chosen to advance them, that is the requirement that all members of a unionized workplace contribute to union coffers without any guarantee as to how their contributions will be used,” the judgment continues. “An opting-out formula could seriously undermine the unions’ financial base and the spirit of solidarity so important to the emotional and symbolic underpinnings of unionism.”

Unionization in the Canadian private sector is down from 30 per cent in 1997, to 18 per cent last year in both Canada and B.C. Public-sector unionization is just over 70 per cent, even after a 4.7 percent reduction in that sector over the same period — a reduction created mainly by the contracting out of public services to for-profit providers whose workers are often not unionized.

If the recent Tory convention resolutions ever make it into Canadian law, trade unionists worry the kind of “social unionism” described in the Lavigne case will become illegal, and union membership could continue to shrink across the country.  [Tyee]

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