Tag Archives: unions

Unions, Democracy and Equality: CCPA Series

Posted on by

https://www.policyalternatives.ca

Unions, Democracy and Equality

This CCPA series documents the critical role unions have played in reducing inequality and enhancing democracy in Canada, and examines the forces working to undermine union strength.

Reports

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.”

Canada Shows the Power of Unions

Posted on by

 

Jim Stanford  Jim Stanford is an economist with Unifor.

December 4, 2013    http://www.nytimes.com

The dream of a decent, “middle class” life still exerts a powerful influence in North American culture. But we often forget that the middle class is actually a relatively recent creation. It was largely a result of working people organizing to win a decent share of prosperity, especially through unionization and collective bargaining.

A major reason for Canada’s greater income equality is that unions represent 31 percent of its workers, compared to 12 percent in the U.S.

There is an inherent asymmetry between employers and workers. Without institutional structures to strengthen workers’ position, workers get enough to survive, while owners, investors and a few professionals pocket the lion’s share of economic growth.

Auto factory wages and working conditions were traditionally poor. Unionization and collective bargaining improved incomes and security, so workers could afford home ownership, a comfortable retirement and college tuition for their kids. In other industries, too, lousy jobs became middle-class jobs, thanks largely to unions.

Many assume that a restaurant job is inherently a poverty-level job. But collective bargaining could help restaurant workers improve wages and working conditions and attain a better life.

Income distribution is far more equal in Canada than in the United States, despite the similarity of their economies. That’s largely because unions represent 31 percent of workers in Canada, compared to 12 percent in the United States. (The minimum wage is Canada is generally around $10 an hour.) Prosperity is shared more broadly.

Higher unionization in Canada is the culmination of many small differences in labor law. In most jurisdictions, unions can be certified when a clear majority of workers sign union cards. There are stronger protections against being fired for union activity (including organizing drives and strikes). Union dues are usually deducted at source by the employer and forwarded to the union. Contracts can be settled by arbitration for new bargaining units or in the event of long work stoppages. In some provinces, employers are not permitted to hire replacement workers during strikes. All of this means that Canadian workers have a better chance to form a union and negotiate a fair deal with their employers.

To be sure, unions are under pressure in Canada (as in the United States) from globalization and hostile employers, and the erosion of unionization would undermine Canada’s social equality. But the positive impact of collective bargaining on equality and social inclusion is still evident.

The collective action of restaurant workers brought public attention to their low pay and insecurity. By formalizing that collective power they could turn their lousy jobs into decent ones.