At this very moment, the unions are in defensive mode. Why? It has to do with the government. It has to do with what is becoming more and more an obvious partisan conversation. It has to do with power. I phoned into a party line a few weeks ago with one thing in mind. To see what Bills the provincial government were proposing. Comprising of a few items, condensed it has a few thought bubbles in mind.
- The removal of binding arbitration in the negotiating process.
- The imposed fines on union members up to the national body that either participate in or talk about wild cat strikes.
- The implication that the government should be representing the people of Alberta and not the whims of the unions.
First off to understand the proposed bills you have to understand the labour relations process. Wildcat strikes are illegal. No sane person condones them, but they will happen from time to time. Responsible leaders will never suggest wildcat strike openly because they do not encourage labour/management talks. They have psychological, financial, emotional (and the list goes on) effects on everyone involved and to many who don't understand the process it can seem like the easiest way to enact change. Honestly it is in the short term, but in the long view it is quite negative to the whole process.
If you are essential, you don't have the option of striking, which makes wildcats even more appealing. Binding arbitration for these workers is the last step in negotiations. If you hit the last step usually both sides face situations where an arbitrator will decide on what a fair contract will entail. For those areas that are deemed essential, binding arbitration is the last resort, and in some ways it is the only resort when dealing with a Government that is so easy on the pocket book when it comes to their own wages and looses their wallet when the wage increases are proposed for a larger mass. For unions like AUPE they have just recently been negotiating with a government that is only interested in one financial outcome (Four Year Deals with 0,0,1%,1% increases). There are many arguments at play but ultimately this comes down to politics and taxes.
If you are essential, you don't have the option of striking, which makes wildcats even more appealing. Binding arbitration for these workers is the last step in negotiations. If you hit the last step usually both sides face situations where an arbitrator will decide on what a fair contract will entail. For those areas that are deemed essential, binding arbitration is the last resort, and in some ways it is the only resort when dealing with a Government that is so easy on the pocket book when it comes to their own wages and looses their wallet when the wage increases are proposed for a larger mass. For unions like AUPE they have just recently been negotiating with a government that is only interested in one financial outcome (Four Year Deals with 0,0,1%,1% increases). There are many arguments at play but ultimately this comes down to politics and taxes.
The argument by the Alberta Progressive Conservatives is an attempt to control a very real situation down the road where contracts are expiring and the cost of binding arbitration will be a very real hit on the governments bottom line. The cost of living has gone up so much in Alberta that any arbitrator in their own sound mind would see this glaring fact. This means a high probability of a salary increase. If is was the opposite way the government would be all over binding arbitration. In this case it is the unions who stand to gain and for a government that prides itself in keeping taxes low. In order to be paying a large amount of employees a few percentages above the cost of living the government would have to be find the money through the very tax payers that voted them in. From the data shown they are not willing to raise royalties for oil, and the next in the line are the tax payers. This also plays with the pension shortfall, but I'll stick to these two Bills
The good and bad news is really the same sentence. Voter apathy has made this both a winnable and looser of an argument. If enough people would just get out to vote and make sure their MPP knew that they would not be getting voted in the next election one of two things would happen. Either parliament will drop the issue, or they will take their chances in a long standing mostly PC province.
When I was first in a union a few things pop into my mind. Usually it is a protest I saw on television, or a movie corrupt union boss, or a litany of mixed messages. Like pensions, it takes a few choice moments in your life to realize the importance of the union world. Organized labour is necessary to insure fair representation. It is the power of organized labour that is a real threat to those that need to undermine the cost of reducing taxes and advancing an old idea that in order for capitalism to work variables like wages need to be manipulable.
When I was first in a union a few things pop into my mind. Usually it is a protest I saw on television, or a movie corrupt union boss, or a litany of mixed messages. Like pensions, it takes a few choice moments in your life to realize the importance of the union world. Organized labour is necessary to insure fair representation. It is the power of organized labour that is a real threat to those that need to undermine the cost of reducing taxes and advancing an old idea that in order for capitalism to work variables like wages need to be manipulable.
The second part of this equation is the fines. I am also an OH&S connoisseur. So when I hear that a Union can face fines that immediately outweigh the fines placed on negligent employers concerning safety I choke a little bit on this Bill. Understand that when dealing with such large issues, the fact that money plays in this is an uncomfortable factor. In real terms the government has decided that it is easier to silence the labour market with just the spoken word of something like a wild cat strike through automatic fines. If you are keeping score, if the employer is unsafe and you get injured, the company may face fines up to jail time. If a union just whispers the idea of a strike, they face fines of a million dollars a day and the immediate stoppage of union dues.
How many times have you said something to a co-worker that was over the top? Now picture your wage connected directly to the government reacting to another person taking your idea to the next level. It's a scare tactic that is so outrageous it is dangerous to think it actually has happened. You are now guilty for the very freedom of speech that you are granted in the constitution. No harm is meant to people over the talk of a wildcat strike. So why would it cost a person their very salary for uttering the word "Strike". I wonder how we can
Imagine if the government suggested that companies to stockpile large sums of money just to ensure that in the case of things like oil spills, they could clean it up . Companies would have to not only fund the clean up, but prove that they won't go bankrupt before the clean up was completed. From a spectators point of view this is a valid request. However the world is full of risk, and funding accounts just in case of one of those risks is admitting that errors will happen.
In a labour world we sign Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) that state if this happens we will do this or that or whatever. If it says "An employer will or an employee must, than there are consequences and privileges for both sides. When an individual signs an agreement, they too have obligations, that must be followed. For example, when the government says to a manager that they will get a bonus if they find cost savings or achieve a desired level of output, they will be expecting a bonus. The government is under contract. If they go against the contract they can be held liable for damages. The unique difference here is that the employer in this case can influence the laws. In this case they are mobilizing on this front with a heavy hand.
I want to point out that in this situation, the Province is saying that they are looking out for the majority of Alberta workers, that they speak as if they are on side with a majority. Unfortunately I find it hard for any Government with the current turn out of voters as being able to ever say they are speaking for the majority. This move is wrong on many levels, and hopefully the courts will reverse this very oppressive move.
How many times have you said something to a co-worker that was over the top? Now picture your wage connected directly to the government reacting to another person taking your idea to the next level. It's a scare tactic that is so outrageous it is dangerous to think it actually has happened. You are now guilty for the very freedom of speech that you are granted in the constitution. No harm is meant to people over the talk of a wildcat strike. So why would it cost a person their very salary for uttering the word "Strike". I wonder how we can
Imagine if the government suggested that companies to stockpile large sums of money just to ensure that in the case of things like oil spills, they could clean it up . Companies would have to not only fund the clean up, but prove that they won't go bankrupt before the clean up was completed. From a spectators point of view this is a valid request. However the world is full of risk, and funding accounts just in case of one of those risks is admitting that errors will happen.
In a labour world we sign Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) that state if this happens we will do this or that or whatever. If it says "An employer will or an employee must, than there are consequences and privileges for both sides. When an individual signs an agreement, they too have obligations, that must be followed. For example, when the government says to a manager that they will get a bonus if they find cost savings or achieve a desired level of output, they will be expecting a bonus. The government is under contract. If they go against the contract they can be held liable for damages. The unique difference here is that the employer in this case can influence the laws. In this case they are mobilizing on this front with a heavy hand.
I want to point out that in this situation, the Province is saying that they are looking out for the majority of Alberta workers, that they speak as if they are on side with a majority. Unfortunately I find it hard for any Government with the current turn out of voters as being able to ever say they are speaking for the majority. This move is wrong on many levels, and hopefully the courts will reverse this very oppressive move.