Another Union Mess in AB

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Iggy how does the decertification process work? Is it as simple as the certification process?

It is the exact same. The only difference would be that employees looking to decertify generally don’t have to worry about what would happen if their employer found out.

If these two employees were to sign decertification cards since they represent over 65% they are out?

If they don’t have a CBA, yes. If they do it would have to happen during an open period(2 months prior to or anytime after expiry, or anytime after the second year of an agreement.)

With the terrible 65% no vote legislation this Union membership being evidence of support of union membership at every employer rule should be eliminated. When used as the equivalent of signing a card to get a vote it's pretty reasonable as a person could voice their objection later through the vote. But as the only sign of support its not good legislation.

This kind of scenario only really applies to the construction industry, and construction companies know the rules when they hire. I can’t imagine a scenario where a shop with a workforce that has 65% union membership would vote no.

Yhe change of legislation to allow autocertification with 65% of cards signed instead of a secret ballot really opens up certification for abuse of process.

There are 2 ways for the employees and their union to present their support for certification to the ALRB, a petition or a card check. A petition only requires the employee’s basic information, their signature and the signature of a witness on a sheet stating they wish to be represented by a union. A card check requires every employee who is in favour to have signed a card. When signing that card the law requires for that employee to pay a $2-$5 fee to the union, which the union must provide a receipt to that employee for. The card also requires personal information for tax purposes.

The 65% automatic certification only applies when card check is used as evidence of support. It’s very rare for an application with over 65% to lose a vote, but even less likely in cases of a card check. This legislation basically saves the board’s time from holding a vote(in cases of both a certification and decertification) and avoids the hostile period in between the application being received and the vote for certification, during which it’s common for unfair labour practice charges to be filed due to the actions of an employer.

[GGG]

I understand the perceived benefits of a card check and 65% threshold. As a result of this process we will continue to see stories about the abuse of process. To me the benefits you identify of not holding the vote do not outweigh the lack of agency in the Card process.

When you say "only applies to the construction industry" you essentially are saying only applies where Unions are a significant portion of the industry. If the legislation doesn't work in the construction industry it doesn't work. It is also probably a negative for union members trying to get non union jobs as small employers would be less likely to expose themselves to this risk by hiring people with union shop work history.

If Union membership is 65% in a company that isn't unionized it should be very simple to get the cards signed. That isn't a burdensome requirement to ensure that the employees are well represented.

This case is even more sketchy because the spouse of the owners father unionized the shop on them so it appears there is some issues outside of the court documents that is occurring

[iggy_oi]

This could happen in any industry, construction is just the likeliest. IMO I don’t think a single ruling(which won’t prevent those employees from decertifying) since the laws changed in September in a highly unionized industry is cause for alarm.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Seems pretty cut and dry from the Labour Board, they were members of the Union before the work took place, they did not resign their memberships before beginning the work and the union decided to certify the workplace. They attempted to resign after the certification application was filed.

If you don't want to be represented by a union then don't be a member in good standing with one. They should have resigned before taking the job.

Cut and Dry? You're totally ignoring the fact that the Labour Board has the ability to exercise some discretion here, and was explicitly asked to do that by the business owners and employees during this hearing.

What's the point of forcing unionization upon a workplace that has zero interest in being unionized and 100% of employees do not want that union?

The process is the punishment here. The NDP, who control the Labour Board, and this union are attacking this private business based on ideological grounds.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Cut and Dry? You're totally ignoring the fact that the Labour Board has the ability to exercise some discretion here, and was explicitly asked to do that by the business owners and employees during this hearing.

They can use their discretion based on the documents that are filed prior to the hearing. The board should never be making their decision based on a petition that hasn’t been verified, whether it be for a certification or decertification.

What's the point of forcing unionization upon a workplace that has zero interest in being unionized and 100% of employees do not want that union?[/QUOTE]

Where is your evidence that there is zero interest? There is no mention as to how many employees signed the petition that was not filed timely. If there is support for decertification the employees can simply file the application correctly and this is a dead issue.

The process is the punishment here. The NDP, who control the Labour Board, and this union are attacking this private business based on ideological grounds.

Punishment? If this group chooses to decertify this does not affect the business at all.

[GGG]

The evidence is in right in the jidgement.

There were 2 employees in the bargaining unit at the time the petition was filed. They were both union members. Both of their positions that they didn't want to join the union now were considered to be factual by the labour board.

Unfortunately the law is set up so the board does not have discretion. They only evaluated the size of bargaining unit and wether the employees were members in union at the time of application.

This automatic certification via union membership without a vote is a bad law.


Why are you unable to concede that in this instance the law did not represent the employees very well?

[FlamesKickAss]

Yea unions suck

[White Out 403]

Unions are stupid. Lower wages and higher occurrence of work place death and injuries are a small price to pay for those tree hugging liberal scum to stay away!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Unions are stupid. Lower wages and higher occurrence of work place death and injuries are a small price to pay for those tree hugging liberal scum to stay away!

Yeah. Thats what people have against Unions. Because all employers are Mr. Burns.

Keep parroting your own narrative though. Dont stop on account of reason or logic or anything.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah. Thats what people have against Unions. Because all employers are Mr. Burns.

Keep parroting your own narrative though. Dont stop on account of reason or logic or anything.

It's just the facts. The liberal tree hugger part is my own little contribution but some of the anti union rhetoric on here is literally the same but serious, not tongue in cheek. Btw the Springfield Nuclear plant was unionized, had great benefits like a sweet Dental Plan and a coverage for drugs, and afforded a middle class lifestyle for folks like Homer

[Locke]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

It's just the facts. The liberal tree hugger part is my own little contribution but some of the anti union rhetoric on here is literally the same but serious, not tongue in cheek. Btw the Springfield Nuclear plant was unionized, had great benefits like a sweet Dental Plan and a coverage for drugs, and afforded a middle class lifestyle for folks like Homer

Do you realize that you make the case against unions all on your own?

Well...I'm not going to drag iggy into this.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

It's just the facts. The liberal tree hugger part is my own little contribution but some of the anti union rhetoric on here is literally the same but serious, not tongue in cheek. Btw the Springfield Nuclear plant was unionized, had great benefits like a sweet Dental Plan and a coverage for drugs, and afforded a middle class lifestyle for folks like Homer

Read the judgement in this specific case.

Then tell me te legislation served these employees well and represented their interests. Unions can be a net benefit AND have problems with their administration and the legislation. These aren't mutually exclusive events. Your sarcastic attack does nothing to help discourse.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by GGG

Read the judgement in this specific case.

Then tell me te legislation served these employees well and represented their interests. Unions can be a net benefit AND have problems with their administration and the legislation. These aren't mutually exclusive events. Your sarcastic attack does nothing to help discourse.

Look, I'm not going to condemn unions based on one union or one judgement. In the same way I wouldn't expect you to condemn all businesses and employers on one case.

[Itse]

The whole case is about proper paperwork not delivered in time. Courts all over the world will rule these cases the same. The union angle is purely coincidental.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Look, I'm not going to condemn unions based on one union or one judgement. In the same way I wouldn't expect you to condemn all businesses and employers on one case.

Because thats what everyone is doing.

"Look! This proves that Unions are bad!!"

One case. Thats all it takes. They should have mentioned that at the meetings.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Itse

The whole case is about proper paperwork not delivered in time. Courts all over the world will rule these cases the same. The union angle is purely coincidental.

I think the union that decided to certify a workplace where no wanted them isn't a guilt-free party in this.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Look, I'm not going to condemn unions based on one union or one judgement. In the same way I wouldn't expect you to condemn all businesses and employers on one case.

Im not asking you to condem unions.

I'm asking you to acknowledge that in this instance the union failed to represent the employees interest.

Unions aren't a black and white issue. (Except public unions, they suck)

[White Out 403]

It's a little more nuanced than that. If the labour board were to rule differently it could wind up harming representational rights for many others.

There's nothing stopping these people from de-certifying.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

It's a little more nuanced than that. If the labour board were to rule differently it could wind up harming representational rights for many others.

There's nothing stopping these people from de-certifying.

And thats all I needed to know.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Good stuff.

Thats like saying:

"Yeah, hes got a gun pointed at your head, but theres nothing stopping you from just walking away."

It makes about the same amount of sense.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Locke

And thats all I needed to know.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Good stuff.

Thats like saying:

"Yeah, hes got a gun pointed at your head, but theres nothing stopping you from just walking away."

It makes about the same amount of sense.

Originally Posted by Locke

And thats all I needed to know.

Also, I promise you that I know more about this than you. A lot more.