Another Union Mess in AB

[Locke]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

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

That just makes it worse.

If you know more than I do then you should understand why its terrible. And if you dont....thats something else.

[puffnstuff]

'Hey, you guys want to be in our union?'
'No.'
'Alright then, we will get into our union.'

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Locke

That just makes it worse.

If you know more than I do then you should understand why its terrible. And if you dont....thats something else.

You can't view these decisions narrowly. When the labour board or an arbitrator makes a ruling they have to be careful because it sets precedent for future behaviour, rulings, and even interactions between a shop steward/union rep and management /labour relations.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

You can't view these decisions narrowly. When the labour board or an arbitrator makes a ruling they have to be careful because it sets precedent for future behaviour, rulings, and even interactions between a shop steward/union rep and management /labour relations.

Precisely.

The fact of the matter is that Unions were important. But in a Free Market they arent anymore.

Its cyclical.

My biggest issue with Unions is that they show up and become an ingrained Institution that you cant get rid of.

This isnt a 3rd world country, we're not taking advantage of workers and making them sweatshop labourers, but they have to be able to adapt and Unions, by definition, are unable and unwilling to do that.

I've held 2 unions cards in my life and they were the worst jobs I've ever had. Now I own my own business. There cant be more opposite ends of the spectrum, but I have literally been there and done that and been given the T-Shirt.

But you promised that you know more than I do.

[White Out 403]

Ah yes, the unions are evil card. We don't need them anymore, we aren't in sweat shops, etc. What a delightful turn of discussion. Good day.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Ah yes, the unions are evil card. We don't need them anymore, we aren't in sweat shops, etc. What a delightful turn of discussion. Good day.

Everyone exists to take advantage of you and you cant stand that on your own so you need to team up and fight the good fight.

Good day indeed.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by 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.

You’re ignoring the part where they were clearly told prior to starting the work that as members in good standing they would not be able to preform non union work. Once they started performing the non union work the other union members working at the same site brought it to their union’s attention and the application was made.

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.

The board can use discretion, however in this case the union did nothing wrong. They were informed by their members of an issue and they addressed it(as they are required to do by law) by filing an application. This ruling basically sends the message to those employees that they can’t have their cake and eat it too and if they continue to try and do so this will be the end result. If they don’t want to be represented by a union at their new employer they need to withdraw their membership and apply for decertification.

You’re a poster who generally looks at the big picture when it comes to legislation and are smart enough to understand that no laws are perfect so I’m a little surprised to see you taking a single and somewhat unique scenario out of all of the applications filed since this legislation was put into effect to argue why this is a bad law.

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

The law doesn’t change the fact that these union members would not be able to perform the non union work. The employees knew that but opted to not withdraw their membership prior to starting work for the non union company, the same as any other member would, knowing full well that if the membership had issues with it the union would take the necessary steps to address the issue. The ALRB’s purpose is to ensure that the laws are followed by employers, unions and employees/union members regardless of who benefits from the decision.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Precisely.

The fact of the matter is that Unions were important. But in a Free Market they arent anymore.

Its cyclical.

When were Canada and the US not free market economies?

My biggest issue with Unions is that they show up and become an ingrained Institution that you cant get rid of.

Decertification. Your issue isn’t with an inability to get rid of a union, your issue is you don’t want the employees deciding on whether or not they want a union. Even in this case the union can quickly be decertified.

This isnt a 3rd world country, we're not taking advantage of workers and making them sweatshop labourers, but they have to be able to adapt and Unions, by definition, are unable and unwilling to do that.

By definition? Sorry you’re mistaken in either how you define unions or how you define definition.

I've held 2 unions cards in my life and they were the worst jobs I've ever had. Now I own my own business. There cant be more opposite ends of the spectrum, but I have literally been there and done that and been given the T-Shirt.

If your jobs were terrible with a union what makes you believe they would have been better without a union?

But you promised that you know more than I do.

Sorry white out. Locke was a union member twice so he clearly knows as much or more than you do about unions.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You’re ignoring the part where they were clearly told prior to starting the work that as members in good standing they would not be able to preform non union work. Once they started performing the non union work the other union members working at the same site brought it to their union’s attention and the application was made.



The board can use discretion, however in this case the union did nothing wrong. They were informed by their members of an issue and they addressed it(as they are required to do by law) by filing an application. This ruling basically sends the message to those employees that they can’t have their cake and eat it too and if they continue to try and do so this will be the end result. If they don’t want to be represented by a union at their new employer they need to withdraw their membership and apply for decertification.

You’re a poster who generally looks at the big picture when it comes to legislation and are smart enough to understand that no laws are perfect so I’m a little surprised to see you taking a single and somewhat unique scenario out of all of the applications filed since this legislation was put into effect to argue why this is a bad law.



The law doesn’t change the fact that these union members would not be able to perform the non union work. The employees knew that but opted to not withdraw their membership prior to starting work for the non union company, the same as any other member would, knowing full well that if the membership had issues with it the union would take the necessary steps to address the issue. The ALRB’s purpose is to ensure that the laws are followed by employers, unions and employees/union members regardless of who benefits from the decision.

So what in a round about way you are saying is that the union did not represent these employees interests in this case.

Can't you admit there are any downsides in any case?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

So what in a round about way you are saying is that the union did not represent these employees interests in this case.

The union not agreeing to allow these employees to perform non union work is not misrepresentation due to the fact that for a number of reasons they aren’t required to do so. But they are however required to take the steps they did if their other members are opposed to allowing those 2 members to perform non union work in the event they are in fact performing that work.

Can't you admit there are any downsides in any case?

In any case as in with or with the automatic certification legislation? I thought I did:

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You’re a poster who generally looks at the big picture when it comes to legislation and are smart enough to understand that no laws are perfect so I’m a little surprised to see you taking a single and somewhat unique scenario out of all of the applications filed since this legislation was put into effect to argue why this is a bad law.

My position remains the same. This ruling doesn’t have any long term effects unless the two employees decide they don’t want to withdraw their memberships and that the benefits to the legislation outweigh the cons despite this scenario. There remains a clear, quick and straightforward process to have the certification revoked if that is what they wish to do. With only 2 employees at the company the signatures could realistically be collected and the application be faxed to the ALRB faster than we can debate the matter. Basically all this ruling does is tell the employees they need to follow the decertification process as outlined in the labour code. The same as they would have told any union making an application improperly. Had the employees done so in the first place the case would have likely been dismissed.