Union Intimidation Reported In Calgary:

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay, I'll admit to not being 100% up to speed on the details going on here, but it appears that people wandering onto a worksite and BSing the workers there that they owe some fabricated amount of $250 for some nebulous reason and then offering them a discount in order to get their signatures to establish a Union without any real informed consent...

Thats all cool?

This is my guess of what probably happened based on the information provided in the article. It states the employee was a former member of that union. Union bylaws vary from local to local but generally once a union member terminates their employment they have to sign a withdrawal card to suspend their membership and dues payments. If you don’t sign a withdrawal card and wish to work at another company the union represents you will need to choose to either pay the initiation fee again or pay any union dues that are in arrears. Most choose to repay the initiation fee unless there are other factors that could be impacted by a break in service(pension, seniority etc).

I don’t know what exactly was said, and as I’ve already stated if it is proven that there was coercion then I hope the perpetrator(s) are held accountable. With that being said though the information presented in the article doesn’t really provide enough evidence for me to conclude whether this was coercion or a miscommunication of the re-initiation process due to a language barrier.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

With that being said though the information presented in the article doesn’t really provide enough evidence for me to conclude whether this was coercion or a miscommunication of the re-initiation process due to a language barrier.

As if there's a difference in the result.

Good to know you are ok with forcing employees into a union based on miscommunication and language barriers though.

Seems legit.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Good to know you are ok with forcing employees into a union based on miscommunication and language barriers though.

I don’t recall ever stating that, so why make it up?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I don’t recall ever stating that, so why make it up?

Because that's the clearest interpretation of your statement. If you'd like to clarify which instances of union intimidation or coercion are more egregious than others please feel free?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Because that's the clearest interpretation of your statement. If you'd like to clarify which instances of union intimidation or coercion are more egregious than others please feel free?

I haven’t stated that there are any scenarios where intimidation or coercion are acceptable or less egregious than others.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I haven’t stated that there are any scenarios where intimidation or coercion are acceptable or less egregious than others.

Ok, thanks for clarifying, it certainly seems that your statement indicated that a miscommunication due to language was an acceptable way for unions to coerce employees into signing cards. It's really sad to see this Union get away with both this and the bullying; glad you agree.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Ok, thanks for clarifying, it certainly seems that your statement indicated that a miscommunication due to language was an acceptable way for unions to coerce employees into signing cards. It's really sad to see this Union get away with both this and the bullying; glad you agree.

Sorry for the confusion. What I was saying is that if the former member signing the card simply misinterpreted the explanation about their dues being in arrears then it would not be coercion. If they were actually told that they owed money that they didn’t in an effort to get them to sign a card then that would obviously be completely unacceptable.

Edit: when you say it’s really sad to see the union get away with this, you’re assuming they’re guilty and also making the assumption that if they have done something wrong they will be getting away with it. Looking back in this thread you’ve actually made assumptions or accusations based on assumptions in every single post you’ve made. Just thought I’d point that out.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

My only question is this, if they are upset about their certification why aren’t they applying for a decertification?

Because that would require them to acknowledge that the certification was legitimate in the first place. The second they do that, the argument of fraudulent behavior on the part of the union is dead.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Because that would require them to acknowledge that the certification was legitimate in the first place. The second they do that, the argument of fraudulent behavior on the part of the union is dead.

If they’ve already been certified it would be much quicker to decertify rather than fight to have the board’s decision overturned. It would have nothing to do with what the union did or didn’t do however if charges are brought against the union the members’ decision to not apply for decertification will almost certainly be used to discredit the claims being made against the union.

Edit: The article claims(according to one employee) the 11 employees who attended the certification hearing wanted a vote. The article also states that there are 18 total employees in the bargaining unit. You only need 40% of employees to sign a petition to have a vote for decertification and 61% claim to want one which is why I’m puzzled as to why they haven’t applied to have one.

[iggy_oi]

Here is the decision from the hearing in December:
http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/decisions/CR_05271.pdf

[powderjunkie]

Clearly there is a lot more to this story, but it certainly doesn't sound great.

That said, I think it's worth looking at the worst case scenario here...if we're talking about people who are vulnerable to this kind of exploitation, I'm not sure being part of a union (even a bad one) is in their worst interest. Whether you hate your employer or hate your union, you can always try to find another job...

Not gonna bother reading the linked doc, unless someone can show evidence the decision was poorly considered? From a quick skim of the bottom it seems neither the employer nor grieved employees provided reasonable evidence, even when given more time to do so?


Oops - didn't see the date on this (was linked in AB poli thread). Also wish I'd clicked the first link in that thread to a Corbella piece. She doesn't have an ounce of credibility with me...has anyone else covered this?

[Thor]

Its fascinating to see how the decline of the middle class in North America has coincided with the decline of unions.

For all their flaws.

Everyone should watch Hot Coffee to get an idea of why this is destroying the middle class.