Bill C-386: Make replacement workers illegal

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

The Telus LOCKOUT was about keeping Telus jobs in Canada, and had nothing to do with wages. A battle their union ultimately lost.

So, you are or were a TCU member working for Telus then, eh? The reality is, the union walked off the job. That is, by definition, a strike. It was done so following strike votes, and done on the eve of Telus imposing a deal after four years of stalling by the union. The union certainly tried to delude its members and the public into believing it was a lockout, but Telus had no reason to do so.

It was also a strike largely driven by the BC half of the company as it desperately fought to retain the gold plated benefits packages that BCTel had, while Telus wanted to unify all of its employees under the Telus package.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I've yet to see a compelling argument explaining why unions are relevant or necessary for most jobs in modern Western economies.

Coal miners in China? Yeah, those guys desperately need a strong union. But what do white collar telecom workers in Canada need a union for other than demanding unreasonable higher salaries than market forces would dictate?

Having been a meat cutter in a packing plant for 12 years of my life, I can assure you that most employees who work in that type of environment are in need of unions. This is doubly true of those who do not speak English well or are not familiar with the labour laws of this country.

Very rarely is the major justification for unions about money, or benefits because the wages are often higher (in the meat industry at least) in non-union shops. It is about safety, and standing on a production line, being worked to the very limits of your body, and as soon as you get hurt to the point where you cannot work at your normal job anymore, everyone in management wants to get you out of their department or plant because you are hurting their safety index and costing them more in WCB premiums and affecting their bonus.

The argument can be made that the culture of the place has evolved because of the unions and the confrontational nature of the union/management relationship. If we got rid of all unions, then over time it would not be needed but the transition from unions would be pretty painful for the industries and employees involved.

It really depends on the industry though.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

I love what's going on in France right now.

Me too! I'm a huge fan of democracy failing. I can't wait for their economy to collapse and some sort of dictatorship to crop up in the west.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Me too! I'm a huge fan of democracy failing. I can't wait for their economy to collapse and some sort of dictatorship to crop up in the west.

I'm amazed that France hasn't surrendered to the Union yet?

[burn_this_city]

I'm not sure if they can afford to. Unless they get some labour reforms they are in deep trouble.

Heres a quote from the 1700's that seems pretty relevant.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm amazed that France hasn't surrendered to the Union yet?

What the heck do you expect?

Flag-Wavers Union 402 is on strike dude.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

So, you are or were a TCU member working for Telus then, eh? The reality is, the union walked off the job.

After Telus told the union they were going to impose their new un-bargained contract on the employees without a ratification vote. Despite numerous attempts by the Union bargaining committee, Telus circumvented every manner of good-faith bargaining in the book, including taking their offer directly to the membership without coming to terms with the union's own bargaining committee.

In an ideal situation, the company has their mandate, the Union has their own. They come to the table, they exchange proposals, and they hash out a deal that satisifies both parties.

Telus refused to do this. To them it was a "Here is our proposal. Take it, or leave it." In employer/union negotiations, this is considered very bad form. and the Union's bargaining committee made this very clear. Telus ignored this, and went straight to the rank and file with their proposal, and then proceeded to strong-arm the membership by imposing gradually worsening policies each week to get them to capitulate, including the cancelling of scheduled time off, ignoring sick-time allowances, revocation of overtime etc. When the membership refused to be intimidated, Telus ultimately decided to unilaterally impose their contract on the membership without a vote. Then the Union walked off the job. They refused to work under conditions where their input was completely disregarded.

A strike is different, in that after the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement, the union and employer reach an impasse, and as a way of bending the employer to their will, the employees refuse to work. In lockouts, employees are willing to continue working under the conditions of the expired contract until a new one can be ratified, but it is the employer that is unwilling to continue to allow them to work under those conditions.

By effectively telling the members 'When you next come to work, you will be working under a completely different bargaining agreement, one we're forcing on you,' Telus forced the union's hand. Do they take take the passive route and concede, enraging the membership? Or do they grow a pair, stand up, and tell their employer 'If you don't want to play fair, we will not work'?

The union did everything they possibly could to avoid a labour dispute. Telus kept bullying the union like a big kid on the schoolyard, pushing it over, knocking it down, telling it to do what it said. The union finally had enough. Lockout.

That is, by definition, a strike. It was done so following strike votes, and done on the eve of Telus imposing a deal after four years of stalling by the union. The union certainly tried to delude its members and the public into believing it was a lockout, but Telus had no reason to do so.

This is where you are wrong, wholly and utterly. Before the lockout, there hadn't been a strike vote since 2002. The union wanted to avoid a strike. The union wanted to bargain their new contract, but they wanted to do so fairly. But it takes two to tango, and it was Telus that was consistently skirting the issues. The union would much rather have gone to binding arbitration (and actually filed for it), but before the case was to be heard, Telus suddenly backed out. There was five years of this childish nonsense, and the union could have declared a strike after the outcome of the strike vote back in the early turn of the century, but they didn't, because they wanted to bargain fairly and peacefully.

It was also a strike largely driven by the BC half of the company as it desperately fought to retain the gold plated benefits packages that BCTel had, while Telus wanted to unify all of its employees under the Telus package.

This, I will concede, with the exception of the word strike. It's true, most of the union's power was (and still is) driven by the old BCTel membership. But now that the business has expanded coast to coast (Quebec exempted), BC can no longer lead the charge that they used to lead.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

But what do white collar telecom workers in Canada need a union for other than demanding unreasonable higher salaries than market forces would dictate?

Couldn't this be considered the other side of greed or capitalism? It's the worker's version of the owner trying to get the most for his product.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm amazed that France hasn't surrendered to the Union yet?

France really needs a Margaret Thatcher to break up the unions. If the country has no money to pay these people there's nothing the unions should be doing about it. Mind you, the greedy bankers are really at fault in this case and should probably be the ones paying.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Coal miners in China? Yeah, those guys desperately need a strong union. But what do white collar telecom workers in Canada need a union for other than demanding unreasonable higher salaries than market forces would dictate?

There's a story I like to tell when I hear this question.

The owner of a vehicle notices one morning that their car will turn-over, but it will not start. It's not a new car, it's been around the city quite a few times, but there was never any major maintenance performed on it. It was the first real problem the owner had with this car. The owner scheduled an appointment with a mechanic the following day.

After getting the car towed to the mechanic, the owner relayed the problem they were having, and explained that the car was still relatively new. The mechanic then popped the hood and looked at the equipment underneath. The owner demonstrated the trouble by turning the key in the ignition, showing that it would turn over but not start. The Machanic nodded their head, picked up a wrench, and gave the engine block a good solid WHACK!

"Try again." the mechanic said.

The car owner tried again. The car miraculously purred back to life. It was a miracle!

"How much do I owe you?" The owner asked.

"A hundred should cover it."

"A hundred?!" The owner asked in shock. "How can you justify that?! All you did was hit the engine block with your wrench!"

The Mechanic smiled. "It's five dollars for the tap. Ninety five for knowing where to tap."

The story is obviously not true, but it provides insight into the value of uncommon knowledge. If everyone knew how to look after their own cars, no one would make a living as a mechanic.

Finally, to assume that telecom is a 'white collar job' is a gross exaggeration. I admit, I'm paid very well for what I do, and I love my shift schedule (12 hour shifts, 6 shifts spread out over two weeks), but owning multiple houses and driving a different car every 5000 KM I am not.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

France really needs a Margaret Thatcher to break up the unions. If the country has no money to pay these people there's nothing the unions should be doing about it. Mind you, the greedy bankers are really at fault in this case and should probably be the ones paying.

Or a Ronald Reagan.

You want to go on strike and disrupt essential services. Fine by presidential decree, you're all fired, now we can hire replacements that want to work.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

There's a story I like to tell when I hear this question.

The owner of a vehicle notices one morning that their car will turn-over, but it will not start. It's not a new car, it's been around the city quite a few times, but there was never any major maintenance performed on it. It was the first real problem the owner had with this car. The owner scheduled an appointment with a mechanic the following day.

After getting the car towed to the mechanic, the owner relayed the problem they were having, and explained that the car was still relatively new. The mechanic then popped the hood and looked at the equipment underneath. The owner demonstrated the trouble by turning the key in the ignition, showing that it would turn over but not start. The Machanic nodded their head, picked up a wrench, and gave the engine block a good solid WHACK!

"Try again." the mechanic said.

The car owner tried again. The car miraculously purred back to life. It was a miracle!

"How much do I owe you?" The owner asked.

"A hundred should cover it."

"A hundred?!" The owner asked in shock. "How can you justify that?! All you did was hit the engine block with your wrench!"

The Mechanic smiled. "It's five dollars for the tap. Ninety five for knowing where to tap."

.

A month later the garage shuts down and the mechanic is out of work because the mechanic down the street was happy to do the tap for $84.00 which allowed him to make a good living while remaining more competitive and flexible in an ever changing market.

[4X4]

Nice story, HOF. Everyone's heard a variation of it before, and it has F.A. to do with answering the question you quoted.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Or a Ronald Reagan.

You want to go on strick and disrupt essential services. Fine by presidential decree, you're all fired, now we can hire replacements that want to work.

I remember this, but only in passing. I don't know all the details about it.

Could you provide a little more insight? I think you may be overblowing this a bit. I'm sure Reagan fired all the employees of one government service... exactly what service eludes me at the moment... but to fire ALL government employees, hire and train replacements would cause YEARS of havoc on the system.

Totally possible on a smaller scale though. Which department was it?

[CaptainCrunch]

Air Traffic controllers.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ronald...ic_controllers

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id296.htm

[Resolute 14]

Thank you for admitting the union walked off the job, HoF. So we can now settle the point that the major action of that dispute was a strike. And yes, it did follow work actions by both sides - Telus' "soft lockout" and the union's work to rule campaigns. However, your post simply ignores the fact that Telus had been trying to negotiate for four years, continuing to honour an expired deal that gave the BC half of the union ridiculous benefits, with little movement from the TCU. I don't blame them for finally seeking to engage the membership directly or for imposing a deal at that point.

Unions like the TCU are exactly why this proposed law is a terrible idea.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Nice story, HOF. Everyone's heard a variation of it before, and it has F.A. to do with answering the question you quoted.

It had more to do with the justification of the salaries those in the Telecom industry are paid. They're paid what they're paid because they possess knowledge the common person does not. Though white-collar wages, they are not.

As to why telecom employees need unions... you're right, I did miss the mark with that story, didn't I? Oopsy.

To better answer the question as to why telecom employees need unions, I suspect it had to do with most -- if not all -- telecom companies originally started out as a Crown corporation. Alberta had AGT and EdTel, BC had BCTel, Saskatchewan to this day still has Sasktel, Manitoba had MTS. I'm not familiar with how things were out east or north. I know now that Bell is publically traded, but was it a crown corp before that? I can't recall.

When you work for the government as a labourer or tradesperson -- or sometimes even professionals, like teachers -- chances are you are part of a union. It's just how things are.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

A month later the garage shuts down and the mechanic is out of work because the mechanic down the street was happy to do the tap for $84.00 which allowed him to make a good living while remaining more competitive and flexible in an ever changing market.

I appreciate your input on the story, but competition in a changing business -- while valid -- is not the topic of the aforementioned story, but a different story all together.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

I appreciate your input on the story, but competition in a changing business -- while valid -- is not the topic of the aforementioned story, but a different story all together.

I don't believe it is.

One thing that Unions promote is inflexibility in business models. Look what they did in the auto industry.

As global competition grows especially in high tech the Unions are going to have to change their stance from competiting agains the organizations that they're suppossed to be working with to actually understanding business realities in the real world and actually protecting those jobs properly lest they lose them.

The Auto Industry Unions came fairly close to killing the goose that laid the golden egg by being overly greedy and thinking that they had the hammer.

Its the same in any industry.

But I'm strident anti union in this country in this day and age. The market sets company costs and to an effect what people get paid to do in their jobs. But because of the union mindset they create an unstable and inflexible element that means that companies that are heavily unionized will lose any competitive edge that they have in terms of labour costs.

If we can't compete with labour rates in other countries for menial jobs, then the smart thing is to call those job descriptions obsolete in this country and ship them out so that we can focus on more positive endevers, and shift our economy.

Instead of protecting call center jobs for example, we should be more then happy to ship them out and that would force perspective employees to find a different skill set that pays better.

In terms of France for example, they can no longer afford the pay rates and pensions that the Union is demanding they keep, so the Union is willing to sacrifice their members in a fight that they're never going to win.

And going back to the story what I said is relevant, because a person that accuses someone of highway robbery for their rates based on knowledge is not only going to search for someone that can do it cheaper, and probably do an equivalent job of "swinging a hammer" but he's going to tell every friend and aquitance about that too. So it is relevant, that while the person has the knowledge its supreme arrogance to sacrifice your business based on a single transaction.

[FlameOn]

So the PQ want us to be more like France and get paralyzed by nation wide strikes?