Bill C-386: Make replacement workers illegal

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by 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.

Resolute, I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement. If it weren't for the fact that in the early 2000's, when both the union and Telus agreed to be heard before a binding arbitrator, only for Telus to walk away days before the scheduled appointment, I would believe you.

The union did everything in their power to avoid a strike, because strikes are ugly. Telus used to be considered one of the best companies in Canada to work for before the lockout. After the lockout, it plummeted like the Hindenburg Zeppelin, and has never returned to its former glory. Morale is low, jobs are being offshored wherever possible, and honest, hardworking people are being walked out the door.

I understand that's the nature of the beast nowadays for most companies, to offshore as much work to countries that are happy to work for a fraction of what the local staff is being paid, but that is what the union tried so hard to avoid. In my opinion, that should never happen. If I call tech support, or customer service, I should never end up talking to someone on the other end of the line that is obviously not a citizen of my country, but that's life nowadays. The union tried hard to fight that, and in the end, they lost.

It was a sad, sad day for union labour in this country.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

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.

I think that post answered how telecom workers came to be unionized rather than why the nature of their jobs renders the private labour market substandard at being the most efficient at determining their wages. Also same as white collar employees, why is the open market not able to put a price on the 'special knowledge' telecom employees have?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

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.

How dare those Bas**ards let their employees choose and think for themselves. If we let people make their own decisions like that, eventually they might decide they don't want to pay union dues at all.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

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

Maybe they're homesick and suddenly don't feel French enough?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

I understand that's the nature of the beast nowadays for most companies, to offshore as much work to countries that are happy to work for a fraction of what the local staff is being paid, but that is what the union tried so hard to avoid. In my opinion, that should never happen. If I call tech support, or customer service, I should never end up talking to someone on the other end of the line that is obviously not a citizen of my country, but that's life nowadays. The union tried hard to fight that, and in the end, they lost.

It was a sad, sad day for union labour in this country.

I disagree with this whole heartedly, I'm never going to meet the person in tech support, I'm never going to know his face, all I care about is that my need gets fulfilled.

As a business if I have to pay lets say $18.00 an hour for a phone support person, versus shipping it across the seas for a fraction of that amount to be able to keep my product competitively priced then the choice is obvious.

Its great to say that Unions protect jobs, but in a case like this its protecting a obsolete job that hampers business competitiveness on a global stage.

That forces the job market to shift and the education system to an extent to shift.

Thats the nature of business, and it something that the unions are failing to grasp.

They fight for their workers to be radically overpaid in the auto industry while the non union factory down the street can pay more moderate wages that in this case are still good wages and benefits and they pass those savings on to the consumer. Meanwhile the Union digs its heels in until the threat of shut down happens before they make any consessions.

I get that unions have some functionality in terms of conditions and workplace safety, however the government has really effectively moved into those roles and legislated worker abuse out of the system, so whats the point of the unions then?

Developing countries probably do need worker or union representation. But I don't see the need for them in this country.

At some point there needs to be a major shift in Union Mentallity.

There also needs to be a realization that we don't chain people to their desks and sewing machines any more. If you don't like your wages or your conditions, then maybe its time to find something else.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Maybe they're homesick and suddenly don't feel French enough?

Do you think if we asked nicely they'd move to France? They'd be much happier there I'm sure.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

I understand that's the nature of the beast nowadays for most companies, to offshore as much work to countries that are happy to work for a fraction of what the local staff is being paid, but that is what the union tried so hard to avoid. In my opinion, that should never happen. If I call tech support, or customer service, I should never end up talking to someone on the other end of the line that is obviously not a citizen of my country, but that's life nowadays. The union tried hard to fight that, and in the end, they lost.

It was a sad, sad day for union labour in this country.

Interestingly, with the whole outsourcing tech support stuff, it is slowly starting to come back. A lot of people love Apple's customer service and will pay the premium on their products because their call centers are located in North America - and frankly, because of their success, other companies are seeing that there is value in someone that can speak the language of their customers. You'll also never see corporate tech support be outsourced as well, because large enterprise customers put a premium on their employees' time rather than the cost of the service.

A regular consumer, on the other hand, would rather pay $100 less for a product, and thus businesses must adapt to this behavior and do what the market wants. It isn't always about the wages paid to the employee. It is about how much value the employee can add to the company. Speaking fluent english is an excellent skill to have in North America and will add value to many jobs.

[SebC]

Put me into the anti-union crowd. I remain absolutely disgusted that the CAW was able to bankrupt their employers, then received a taxpayer bailout to keep their pensions afloat.

Collusion is illegal, so why are labourers permitted to collude? The only place where I think collective bargaining should have a role is where the employer is also monopolistic.

[disco_inferno]

As someone who has to deal with union stuff on a daily basis, I disapprove of this.

I understand the point of the union, workers have every right to grieve me for doing something they are qualified to do (as a staff person). The problem becomes when the union has the power to shut off production, dismiss safety, dismiss common sense, and be ultra lazy and there can be ZERO discipline.

Making the kind of money guys in union-type jobs make (for the most part), and getting the benefits they get, they have no right to strike. I say let them sit out in the cold and watch someone who's willing to work take home their bread.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Do you think if we asked nicely they'd move to France? They'd be much happier there I'm sure.

Well... The French are deporting the Roma, why not deport a few PQ strikers. I mean they're not doing anything productive anyways.

Quite frankly, I woulda expected something like this bill to come out of the NDP not so much the PQ.

[Vulcan]

Just because some unions are greedy and out of touch, doesn't mean all unions are. I was involved with a construction trade union for many years and experienced strikes, walkouts, wild cat strikes, wobbles and lockouts. It's a moving and interesting relationship where at times the employer has the upper hand and at times the union does, but mostly the parties come to a mutually profitable agreement that includes safety and training.

As for the government providing and satisfying all the safety issues, how long do you think that would last without the unions giving the government the impetus to do that. Also safety issues can come up pretty quickly and the workers need the right to solve the issue on the spot with collective action, not wait months while the government looks into it.

As for the outsourcing of jobs, it all looks good until it's your job being outsourced or your job becomes redundant because no one in your community has the money to buy your product.

[V]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Really, sure some unions are out of control and far too powerful, but other workers should have a union to organize them and fight for simple things like minimum wage, and the right to refuse unsafe work.

These are already enforced by the Alberta Labour Board, and I'm sure every province also has this.

[SebC]

I don't like minimum wage. It causes unemployment.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by V

These are already enforced by the Alberta Labour Board, and I'm sure every province also has this.

Technically yes, but in reality it doesn't always work that way in practice.

It is a lot harder to complain to the Alberta Labour Board than it is to talking to a shop steward. When you have people who don't speak the language or don't understand even the first step in how to file a a complaint with the labour board.

This is coming from a guy who dealt with some of the laziest s in the world who were impossible to fire. I saw this from both sides of the fence as a union employee and as management who had to deal with the union.

There are some places unions are essential.

[Redliner]

Unions have outlived their usefulness in North America. I'm sure they had their place back when we had poorly-supervised uneducated labour working extremely dangerous jobs for minimal compensation, but as Captain Crunch pointed out, the government has largely assumed that mantle of responsibility. Modern Unions are corrupt and bloated institutions that are more concerned with trying to preserve the status quo and maintaining their traditional influence than they are about the well-being of their members. Many of them prey on the lesser-educated among their membership by persuading them to think of themselves as victims of corporate greed when in fact they are very fairly treated and reasonably well compensated for performing what essentially amounts to menial labour. There are no atrocities being committed against these workers that require union intervention. If anything, the union harms the credibility of it's membership by protecting the poor performers and making it difficult for the company to discipline or dismiss lazy or substandard workers. Ironically, this also ends up hurting the union membership, as their safety can be jeopardized by having to work with these employees and the drop in production caused by these individuals also impacts the unionized employees' gainshare bonuses.

I have never understood the "break the company" mentality of some unionized employees. Like the company has done them some huge injustice by committing the heinous crime of providing them with a job so they can feed their families. There are unionized employees at my company who did not complete high school and can earn in excess of $100,000/year working here. And they complain? If they weren't working here they would be out on the rigs or pumping gas somewhere for minimum wage, yet the company is somehow the villain in their minds. I hear the union reps out there spinning tales of woe and serving these guys kool-aid over how overworked they are and how much more they deserve, and it's completely out of touch with reality. Then it's strike time and the union cheerleaders come out and start running off at the mouth about how they are going to bring the company to it's knees. There's a winning strategy. Do as much damage as possible to your employer so they will sustain losses and may have to look at restructuring to remain viable, possibly eliminating your job in the process. Sheer brilliance.

Anyone who wants to stand up and wave the union flag, feel free. You are more than welcome to your opinions, as I obviously have mine. If you work a unionized position and it suits you just fine, more power to you. I personally have turned down unionized positions that paid very well simply because I am not in the least bit inclined to watch part of my paycheque disappear every month to maintain an institution that feels it has the right to tell me when and how I can go to work, and exactly what I can and can not do while I am there. I'd rather make my own decisions, thank you very much.

[V]

Where are they essential?

They sure aren't in my shop.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by V

Where are they essential?

They sure aren't in my shop.

I agree most places don't have the kind of production environment that require a union presence. I know the meat packing industry, as I mentioned in my previous post, is one place where it would be hard to eliminate the union entirely.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I agree most places don't have the kind of production environment that require a union presence. I know the meat packing industry, as I mentioned in my previous post, is one place where it would be hard to eliminate the union entirely.

I honestly think this is likely one of the only jobs where a union is likely required. These guys are pretty much all new to Canada, don't speak English, badly need jobs, and will pretty much do anything to put food on the table.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I disagree with this whole heartedly, I'm never going to meet the person in tech support, I'm never going to know his face, all I care about is that my need gets fulfilled.

As a second level tech, I've dealt with in house help desk, outsourced, but still in Canada, desks and foreign desks. And let me tell you, you often don't get better service in house or in Canada. The thing about offshoring is that you can only move entry level and monitoring positions out - for the most part, entry level. The people who actually build and fix your computer are in house. The people who manage and architect the systems are in house. The people who build and maintain your network are in house. They have to be. The more valuable an employee's task or function is, the more likely it will be in house. It was the least valuable tasks that were sent off shore. And let me tell you, the TCU would have sold these people out in a heartbeat if they could convince Telus to extend that benefits package across Canada without a fight.

In short, the TCU, and any other union, would do to their members what the NHLPA did to rookies in 1995. They sacrificed the least valuable members to protect the most valuable.

I don't think the union model is without its merits, but as has been noted with the auto industry example, most unions will sell out a company's future to satisfy its greed today. The government does not need to protect unions - it needs to ensure fair bargaining for both sides. Most unions, the TCU and CAW being two egregious examples, are not, and have never been, interested in such concepts.

[CaramonLS]

This has the potential to cripple unionized retailers, who are already feeling the crunch because of places like Walmart who have a far lower employee cost per hour and don't pay out benefits, combined with the fact they can hold suppliers hostage for their lowest price.

They've got so much buying power it is unreal.

There is a reason why Walmart will stop at nothing to quash a union trying to organize their workers.