Union Intimidation Reported In Calgary:

[crazy_eoj]

Apparently Union Local 1111 bullied and mislead workers in order to ensure they could take a piece of their paycheck.

Then when a majority of the workers asked for a vote to the ARLB, they for some reason deny it. Maybe the ARLB is tacked with Ex-Union bosses/NDP members?

Be interesting to see the court case develop:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...new-labour-law

[GGG]

I think we found Iggy_Oi

“I doubt if anybody was tricked,” said Desrosier, who has fought for workers’ rights for 25 years. “Were they tricked into getting higher wages, benefits and representation? I don’t know if that would be a trick.”

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think we found Iggy_Oi

I thought the exact same thing when I read the article!

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think we found Iggy_Oi

Nope not me, although anyone who has seen a union card before would know it’d be very difficult(if not impossible) to convince someone it’s a receipt.

A lot of things in that article make no sense. The application was filed in late December, once an application is filed there is a 90 day freeze on wages so it would be illegal for their employer to cut their pay.

All the complaints about missed deadlines work two ways, if the union is an hour late filing an objection the board would treat it the exact same way.

With that being said, if the union is guilty of any wrong doing I hope they are held accountable.

My only question is this, if they are upset about their certification why aren’t they applying for a decertification?

[Nufy]

That pretty greasy...

Like union mob rule in the 70's...

[CaptainCrunch]

Wow that's sleazy on a whole lot of levels, and pretty much borderline criminal.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Nope not me, although anyone who has seen a union card before would know it’d be very difficult(if not impossible) to convince someone it’s a receipt.

A lot of things in that article make no sense. The application was filed in late December, once an application is filed there is a 90 day freeze on wages so it would be illegal for their employer to cut their pay.

All the complaints about missed deadlines work two ways, if the union is an hour late filing an objection the board would treat it the exact same way.

With that being said, if the union is guilty of any wrong doing I hope they are held accountable.

My only question is this, if they are upset about their certification why aren’t they applying for a decertification?

I agree with you that there is an agenda to this article and that more investigation and detail is required. Like where are the Employees that wanted the Union. What was their view on how the signitures were collected.

When you sign a Union Card do you get a copy of the card you signed? Does the Union card state the dues required to pay and the process of joining? Do people that don't speak English well require a witness to sign to verify they understand what they are signing?

$1 per hour on $30 and less wages seems like a pretty big tax for representation. 3-5% of income seems like a lot for the services

I'm very interest in how this one plays out through the courts.

I really don't like the no private vote instant certification. It certainly leaves the process open to intimidation whether or not it occurred.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I agree with you that there is an agenda to this article and that more investigation and detail is required. Like where are the Employees that wanted the Union. What was their view on how the signitures were collected.

When you sign a Union Card do you get a copy of the card you signed? Does the Union card state the dues required to pay and the process of joining? Do people that don't speak English well require a witness to sign to verify they understand what they are signing?

The cards are kept on file at the local office, a copy can always be requested.

$1 per hour on $30 and less wages seems like a pretty big tax for representation. 3-5% of income seems like a lot for the services

This is another part that doesn’t add up. Dues are only deducted after a collective agreement is ratified. Unless they managed to get one done in 2 months time, which for a first agreement seems unlikely.

I'm very interest in how this one plays out through the courts.

Based on what is stated in the article I’m not sure it will get very far in the courts. But as with anything there are likely more details we’re not aware of. These employees have every right to decertify, so I’m a little puzzled as to why they aren’t doing so if the majority of them do not want to be in a union.

I really don't like the no private vote instant certification. It certainly leaves the process open to intimidation whether or not it occurred.

I can see your point, although there are provisions to prevent this from occurring, but I’m sure you’re aware the elimination of a vote eliminates the ability for the employer to intimidate their employees leading up to the vote.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The cards are kept on file at the local office, a copy can always be requested.



This is another part that doesn’t add up. Dues are only deducted after a collective agreement is ratified. Unless they managed to get one done in 2 months time, which for a first agreement seems unlikely.


Based on what is stated in the article I’m not sure it will get very far in the courts. But as with anything there are likely more details we’re not aware of. These employees have every right to decertify, so I’m a little puzzled as to why they aren’t doing so if the majority of them do not want to be in a union.



I can see your point, although there are provisions to prevent this from occurring, but I’m sure you’re aware the elimination of a vote eliminates the ability for the employer to intimidate their employees leading up to the vote.

And by intimidate you mean present the same kind of "factual" (biased with their view of truth) information that the Union is also able to present during that time. And management can also intimidate during the card signing drive.

The big difference is you go into a booth and make a decision that no one will know about or hold you accountable for and you can lie about which way you voted afterwards as opposed as being forced to have an ackward conversation with your friend about why you want or don't want the Union.

Does decertifying require a secret vote and what % is required to decertify?

[Makarov]

I can’t help but notice that many of the “innocent until proven guilty” crowd from the Patrick Brown/Colten Boushie threads have moved over to this thread but have changed their tune a bit.

[Red Slinger]

Dog-whistles and red meat...or is it dog meat and red whistles? I can never keep it straight.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

And by intimidate you mean present the same kind of "factual" (biased with their view of truth) information that the Union is also able to present during that time. And management can also intimidate during the card signing drive.

No I mean by doing things like firing employees who they know are involved to dissuade the other supporters or making offers of promotion of the vote goes their way.

The big difference is you go into a booth and make a decision that no one will know about or hold you accountable for and you can lie about which way you voted afterwards as opposed as being forced to have an ackward conversation with your friend about why you want or don't want the Union.

That employee would still need to have that same conversation with their friend to get the signatures to get to a vote would they not?

Does decertifying require a secret vote and what % is required to decertify?

It is the same process as certification.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I can’t help but notice that many of the “innocent until proven guilty” crowd from the Patrick Brown/Colten Boushie threads have moved over to this thread but have changed their tune a bit.

You got that out of 9 posts (6 if you take away the original post and iggy_oi's)? One, two, or three posters is "many"?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You got that out of 9 posts (6 if you take away the original post and iggy_oi)? Two or three posters is "many"?

Haha, fair point. By “many”, I meant “Captain Crunch”. It just felt cruel to single him out.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Haha, fair point. By “many”, I meant “Captain Crunch”. It just felt cruel to single him out.

You got that from the one sentence he posted?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wow that's sleazy on a whole lot of levels, and pretty much borderline criminal.

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

You got that from the one sentence he posted?

Yup.

[Locke]

Okay, I'll admit to not being 100% up to speed on the details going on here, but it appears that people wandering onto a worksite and BSing the workers there that they owe some fabricated amount of $250 for some nebulous reason and then offering them a discount in order to get their signatures to establish a Union without any real informed consent...

Thats all cool?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay, I'll admit to not being 100% up to speed on the details going on here, but it appears that people wandering onto a worksite and BSing the workers there that they owe some fabricated amount of $250 for some nebulous reason and then offering them a discount in order to get their signatures to establish a Union without any real informed consent...

Thats all cool?

Nope. Not cool at all.

[CaptainCrunch]

Fair enough, then arrest every person that was involved, charge them with fraud and put them on trial and let the courts decide.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Fair enough, then arrest every person that was involved, charge them with fraud and put them on trial and let the courts decide.

Agreed (or if it doesn’t amount to criminal fraud, at least file an application and let the Labour Relations Board deal with it).