You are hereUnions Competing
Unions Competing
I was just reading this article in The Globe and Mail "Two Unions vie for 8,000 CBC workers".
Unreal, this really bugs me - I saw it happen a few years ago in Belleville when nurses at the hospital were being courted by two different unions.
I mean, honestly, the reason why unions exist are to bargain for their members with their employers. But it seems to me today that unions are now overbloated beasts bent on having huge number of members, regardless of industry, to bargain for.
Why can't unions simply be limited to geographical (nation) and industry limits? I mean, when I was a summer student working at Nortel, I was a CAW union member.... that's right, I was apparently an autoworker. Does that make any sense at all?
The CBC should only have one option for joining a union, and then the union should be broken down into "locals" as it was in the past, and each local bargains on their own with the company maybe? I don't know, it's difficult to establish a balance in power between the company and the employee - if the unions are too big, it swings in the employees favour, two small and it swings to the company.
Any ideas?
Why should the CBC only have one option? The union has nothing to do with the CBC, only with its employees.
From the story, you can see that the CBC actually said that it was too costly to negotiate separately, so your idea of locals would be even worse.
And actually, I find if the unions are too big, it swings in the *unions* favour, not necessarily the employees.
This is a difficult issue for me. I have seen the bad side of unions (people getting paid $18/hr to sweep sawdust at the mill), but I also know that unions do help enforce some minimum standards in the workplace.
Ah, the wonders of a free market. Even not for profit organizations can submit to the temptation to expand their reach through growth. I'm on the Board of a nonprofit, and we've recently made the decision to be the best we can be, within the confines of our current infrastructure. But for a while, we were driven to expand so we could do more good stuff for more people. Which is more altruistic?
Unions have the same choice to make. And beyond altruism, the bigger the union, the more you can justify paying the head honcho. And the more friends he can hire to his staff. Good reasons to expand, indeed.
In our "free market" society it should only be fair that unions have the same right as business, to compete for members, just as business competes for customers. That way, workers (or "talent", or whatever you want to call the working masses) can make a choice to belong to the Autoworkers' union or to the Engineers' union or whatever other unions are interested in representing those members. The outcome will depend on the majority vote of fellow workers and on how successful a union is in convincing workers that they are the right choice.
I belong to a small union, representing about 600 members working in municipal parks, recreation centers, offices, libraries and schools and police dispatch centres. We are lucky to have an excellent business manager, who represents us well but is not bent on being adversarial, therefore earning the respect and cooperation of management.
In our case, being a small union works and I think it also works for the employer. If we did not have such a capable manager, we would probably struggle and be better off to be affiliated with a bigger union so that we could benefit from their expertise.
Regarding union wages - someone sweeping sawdust earning $18 an hour: Over the last ten years all our job descriptions were revamped. They were given points for a number of areas, ranging from dexterity, education, mental requirements to disagreeable working conditions, physical challenges and many more. Under that formula, the dust being inhaled by sweeping sawdust all day would weigh heavily under disagreeable working conditions, and receiving less points under other aspects, whereas in my job in the office, the physical and disagreeable conditions would not weigh as heavily, but other aspects would receive higher ratings.
I feel very strongly about decent minimum wages, making it possible for individuals with limited education
.. continued from earlier posted comment (I pressed the "Post" button before finishing the sentence):
... making it possible for individuals with limited education to make a decent living.
I love being able to exchange points with my mother on Dave's blog :p
I also agree in "living wage" implementations that do away with ridiculous $4-6/hr wages. However, my observation was specifically targeted at "industrial unions", in this case mill workers.
Why should someone get $18/hr to sweep sawdust (they have face masks and necessary "protective" gear so their health isn't impacted -- perhaps they wouldn't without a union, but that is a separate issue)? The reason they got the job in the first place is because they know someone inside the union that got them the job.
And these "industrial unions" are at their worst when they don't take realities into account: would BCs lumber industry be in better shape if *some* positions had more realistic wages?
I don't know what the solution is for people with limited education. BC in particular has done a great job of completely gutting the trades- and craft-people system, and Canada in general does not do enough to promote/encourage/fund "alternative" educational paths that would result in skilled workers.
It seems sad that often the best-regarded craftspeople are immigrants from countries where such systems are still strong, e.g. Europe.
My friend Jen has pointed out to me that Australia has a system whereby the government has dictated what they call "Award" wages. What that means is that there are essentially minimum wages for different job classes, so there is a minimum wage for a fastfood worker, and a miminum wage for a daycare worker. Pretty interesting. Australia also has things like vacation loading (you get extra pay when you take your vacation!) and roster days (which are extra days off (1 a month I think) over and above your vacation).
The best thing about the Australian system is that it puts power back in the hands of employees, and therefore unions aren't needed as much (not to say that they are less common - I haven't checked the statistics). Employers in Australia are also required to pay 9% of the employees wage into a Superannuation fund (retirement fund) on top of what they pay the employee, therefore taking away the benifit of pensions often associated with union membership. Also, for those receiving an award wage, they get what is called holiday loading (which is what the additional payment during your vacation time is called). Holiday loading, an additional 17.5% pay during your vacation time, was created because those who worked shifts with shift premiums (i.e. Sundays, graveyard shifts, etc.) couldn't afford to take time off.
But the best thing about working in Australia was the concept of a 38 hour week - and because of the adherance to the award wages and conditions, people tend to stick to it more. If you work more, you get time in lieu (something completely forgotten in Toronto - trust me)! Here, the 40 hour work week is a dream, it's more like 50 to 60, not to mention commute time!
But I digress...
The auto worker's union in Australia doesn't need to look after the librarians - the government does it for them with a system that actually favours the employee.
Post new comment