Bill C-386: Make replacement workers illegal

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

You're going to see that number change - and fast. Employment standards is now a mandatory part of the CALM curriculum.

Unions IMHO are a result of employers not following fair labour practises in the past. However, for the most part, they've been punished long enough and learned from their mistakes.

They served their purpose a long time ago, but now, with a far more educated workforce, there really isn't much of a purpose.

I say this as someone who has worked in a union, worked as management for a union shop, worked as a non-union worker and managed non-union workers. That doesn't make me an expert on this by any stretch but I think it does give me some insight.

You are honestly living a sheltered life if you think that places where unions are essential do not exist anymore. I don't care how many CALM classes you run, there are so many immigrants (and people born in Canada as well) who do not understand the laws and their rights as far as their work goes. I have seen many of these hardworking people get hurt on the job because their supervisor was just trying to meet a quota and couldn't be bothered to train them properly.

Then the supervisor realizes that the guy can't do his normal job for 6+ weeks because of a pretty severe repetitive stress injury or surgery, and the employee is treated like the person who did something wrong. Every attempt is made to fire or transfer him to another part of the company so it isn't on the safety record or counted against the mannings for the department.

Don't tell me that the Alberta Labour Board can do the same thing, because it honestly doesn't have the same accessibility to employees. I have never had a person I terminated in a non-union job file a complaint with the Labour board, even if they probably could have.

That doesn't mean that unions are perfect, because trust me they do allow some lazy people to keep their jobs. I even once saw a woman get transfered from her nice cushy position in the plant because of the union when she was the victim of sexual harassment from a more senior employee. Honestly though, lazy people keep their jobs because their management is apathetic and unwilling to do what is needed to fire them. I am sure we have all seen lazy people keep their jobs in a non-union shop as well, whats the excuse there? Most people I tried to fire who were in the union, got fired and the union couldn't save them because I documented the issues and used the proper disciplinary procedures.

When it boils down to it, the problem isn't really the union, it is the environment that is created when lazy or apathetic management creates a culture in a workplace that promotes maintaining the status quo over demanding performance from their employees. Sure this might be more common in a union environment, but I can promise you that if you suddenly took all the unions away from Alberta, in the long run, very little would change in how things actually get done.

edit: I just want to add that I think this bill that the OP talks about is stupid.

[bradster57]

I was a part of that Telus strike. And by that I mean I signed into the picket line and a bunch of us would go watch some movies in Eau Claire. Then we'd come back, picket for a few minutes and sign out. This would ensure strike pay. It was a great summer off.

A few months later I got a real job.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Of course you do. It isn't in your best interest to admit that given some training and time, anyone can do your job well.

I don't deny that my job can be done by anyone. Likewise, I am just as capable of doing any job out there, given the necessary training, eduation, experience, time to acquire them all, and desire to perform the work. My father believes I would have made an excellent lawyer -- and I probably would have -- but I chose not to go down that path. I didn't want to be a lawyer, even though the one job I would love more than anything in the world is to be a Judge. But in order to be a Judge, you have to first be a lawyer. to be a lawyer, you have to pass the BAR. To pass the BAR requires an incredible amount of devotion and time to study, research, lectures and so on. Moreso than I was willing to give. And even after all that devotion to study is done, the BAR is passed, and the license to practice Law is issued, one still must devote a great deal of time to research on a case by case basis in everything from labour law, to criminal law, to family law, and to business law. Based solely on what I have heard about lawyers and their workloads, few of them can be successful working 40 hours a week. I value my time a great deal. To me, when I leave the office, I leave work behind and the rest of the day is mine to do with as I please. If I am asked to work outside my office hours, make it worth it to me. Pay me double my rate, or it will have to wait until I get into the office again. If the issue is dire enough that those terms are acceptable, fine. If not, I'll see you in the morning and we'll work on it then.

My job can be done by anyone, given the right training, time, and experience. But it cannot be done by just any person picked at random.

5 years ago, when I was locked out, I was working in a job that could be performed by a monkey. Immediately after the lockout ended, I was set to move into a new role that I had applied into before the stoppage. The old job I was in was one of the first to be contracted out, and the fools that had only weeks before received praise and thanks from company executives for being "loyal to the company" were given another set of thanks... and a pink slip. While I admittedly took a great deal of Schadenfreude in the matter, I was saddened that for a great deal of them the irony never sunk in. By crossing the line, they gave the company the freedom to contract out their jobs from under their noses. They worked themselves ragged, enduring the anger from the line and the stress of the added workload only to be kicked out the door. The union was doing everything in their power to prevent that before the lockout happened, but without the support they needed from the membership, they ultimately failed.

That was 5 years ago though. I was a recent SAIT graduate, still fairly young and naïve. Now that I've been in the business for these last 5 years, got the experience, and through everyday living learned more about business, capitalism, altrusim, socialism, the labour movement etc, my views have undergone a change. I understand that a business has itself, its shareholders, and the customers it serves in its best interest. A union, on the other hand, fundamentally has its interest in its membership. Because of this, I support them, and will continue to support them until I no longer breathe. But saying that, I have come to recognize that the dynamics and complexities of business shift as new ideas, new technologies, and new practices become available. I agree that when the times change, the business changes, and a union must be willing to address those changes and challenges just as the company must if they are to remain in business. One cannot survive without the other, and must work together to survive. And while I acknowledge that certain jobs may be made redundant or no longer require specialized training because of automation, I personally believe that it is morally and ethically wrong to let an employee go, and ship their job out of country to be done by someone foreign just to save a few thousand, hundred thousand, or million bucks. Keep the job in Canada. Roll the wage back if you must in order to remain competitive as a business, but keep it in Canada. The only reason any work should ever be offshored is if no one in Canada is willing to do it for what the business is willing to pay.

But I know that there is a grave difference between what I believe a company ought to do, and what actually happens. That's why I work in a specialized role, one that can't be performed by a high school grad looking for their first full time job (as my first one was), one that perfectly balances my financial needs and my need for personal time. And though by its very nature my job could possibly be done by someone overseas, I would hope that my employer would rather rely on my knowledge and experience rather than leave it in the hands of someone that can't even speak either of our two official languages clearly and has never worked on equipment of this magnitude before. Especially when the telephony infrastructure in areas of their own country often looks like this and this.

I realize now -- quite soundly -- that I am in an obvious minority around here with regards to unions and the idea of making replacement workers illegal. It is also quite obvious that I am steadfast in my position, others are steadfast in theirs, and a handful of people could go either way depending on what situation is faced, and no one will be swayed. It's possible that some posters think I'm talking out my arse and haven't got a fataing clue, and that's fine. I can't change that, and I won't try. I welcome the new perspective from opposing standpoints, as long as I know them not to be false. So with that, I thank you all for your input, and I apologize for bringing it up.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by 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.

You're living in a fantasy world. It's a myth that an employee and an employer have equal negotiating power in a capitalist system. Depending on the company, if an employer loses an employee, they will see a drop in profits for a month or so, with resources being spent on training and finding a new employee. If a employee loses his or her job, it could be the difference between being homeless or not. Obviously, the employee has less negotiating power.

Unions even up the power. Obviously a company can't operate without all or most of its employees, so the negotiations are more fair. I won't argue that sometimes it goes too far, and that leads to abuse of the system. The question is, are these abuses enough to offset the good things about unions? In some cases, I'd say yes. However, I think you have to either allow for unions or maintain extremely strict government regulation of employers.

As for minimum wage, it's a necessary employee protection mechanism. It deals with the same power dynamics. An employee that low on the wage bracket needs that power in negotiation, or the company maintains all the power in negotiations. It's already the case in the United States, that millions of people work for below the living wage. If employees had the power in the free market system that you imply they do, why would such a large portion of the population work for below the living wage? 45 million people lived in poverty in the United States last year.