It would seem that @ppilarski has brought me out of my self-imposed realm of 140 characters and into the blogosphere to debate the anti-employee resolution presented by the constituency of Edmonton McClung to the 2010 P.C. Convention in Calgary.
The resolution itself reads:
Be it resolved that, the Government of Alberta introduce amendments to the Labour Relations Code to permit individual employees to opt out of contributing a portion of their union dues if their dues are used to fund union activities which are unrelated to the core union activities of collective bargaining and grievance administration
The resolutions booklet contains a favorable legal opinion by McLennan and Ross presumably written for Merit Contactors Association who themselves gave $32,375 to the P.C. party in annual contributions since 2004
The motivation for the resolution came as a result of the “Nooo Plannn” campaign in 2008 that was entirely funded by Alberta’s unions.
Former Premier Ralph Klein who infamous promised a “boring” election campaigns was the real reason of the move by Alberta’s unions to take such a bold approach.
The momentum created by such ads, helped spur other unions to come on board. Some have said that the ads did not work, however it caused the P.C. party of Alberta to spend an extra million dollars from their bloated war chest to counter the message, but more importantly it created a lot of election discourse that was not promulgated by the current political establishment. In the end voters did not see a clear alternative.
From a labour relations perspective when employers argue for a status quo position, or a negative one, they often point to the lack of member or public engagement as pseudo acceptance of the employer’s position at bargaining. From this perspective it is not hard to understand why Unions want their members involved in political and community life, so why would this not be consider a core activity?
Back to the resolution at hand then, there are a number of questions that remain to be answered.
Question #1 If members of unions were allowed to “opt out” of dues for activities outside of core union business, then should employees of private non-unionized employers also be allowed to opt out of deferred pay raises from employers who spend company profits to donate to political parties ?
Question #2 Who would get to define what constitutes ”core union activities” Unions would often get involved in activities that may not have obvious benefit to the union, or its members to the casual observer, however may have short and long term implications on union core business as understood by those who are deeply involved in such activities.
Question #3 What about the obligation of the impacted member who disagrees with the activities to engage their union? Unions are democratically run with their constitutions on file with the Alberta Labour Relations Board, moreover are under the legal obligation called Duty of Fair representation and are answerable not only to its members but also the Alberta Labour Relations Board.
Question #4 What is the “Net Public Interest Benefit” of such a resolution? Considering that at last count there were 1509 collective bargaining agreements under provincial jurisdiction (remember we have federal labour laws as well) covering a total of 407,915 employees the question of “net public interest benefit” is an appropriate test for any proposed legislation in Alberta. Even in the favorable legal opinion provided at the end of the P.C. resolution booklet they write “provided the restrictions were reasonable ones” The test of what’s reasonable could be found on the net public interest benefit in imposing such restrictions on unions in the first place. I wonder however if the P.C. party has been in power so long it's members think it could pass anything it wants for the party interest.
Finally I want to point out that this issue has already been settled in a Supreme Court of Canada decision: Lavigne v. O.P.S.E.U.
Justice McLachlin in particular made salient points on this issue of a guy who felt the same way as @ppilarski and took it to court:
“He is not forced to join the union; he is not forced to participate in its activities, and he is not forced to join with others to achieve its aims.”
“Nor do the amounts collected impair the ability of workers to conduct their own political expression. To the extent that it offends workers and other forced contributors to see their monies ultimately benefit certain political causes, that harm does not warrant constitutional prohibition of political uses of extracted funds.”
As I tweeted to @ppilarski “Don't fight the unions, work with them. That would put the progressive back in the P.C. brand.”
A very reasoned and informative response to the resolution. Thank you for taking the time to engage in the discourse and bring a little reason to the @ppilarski tweets.
ReplyDeleteGlenn
"He is not forced to join the union"
ReplyDeleteExcept that in Alberta many are, indeed, forced to join. The union lobby wants to have their cake and eat it too, by making membership mandatory AND using mandatory dues for political purposes.
If union democracy were really the issue with respect to using dues for political activism, the unions would be fine with each local seeking to have the collection and spending of dues authorized in the way the local members want in each of their own particular collective agreements. What's currently coming down the pipe is a one-size-fits-all arrangement whereby the power of provincial law backs unions in demanding no local exceptions to making dues mandatory and usable for whatever.
Respect your opinion Brian, but you did not even try to answer my questions I posed ?
ReplyDeleteAlright noleftandright here goes ....
ReplyDeleteIn your post you say this is an "anti-employee resolution"? What? This resolution is about giving individual workers the right to choose whether MANDATORY wage deductions should go towards certain political activities.
Unionists believe they know what's best for employees, even when statistics show that workers don't want their money to go toward these types of activities. How then can the union claim to be speaking for the worker? This is the ultimate form of big brother knows best - so i guess you are saying that union members don't know what's best and they should just be subservient to the desires of the union bosses.
If i were forced to be a union member as a condition of my employment, I would not be willing to accept this notion. THis is, in fact, a complete insult to every single person that works in a unionized environment.
Later in the blog you say "unions want their members to be involved in political and community life, so why would this not be considered a core union activity."
What unions want isn't what the majority of their members want - which is to have the option to opt out of paying union dues for partisan political activities. Unions want to elect the NDP to power. Should the rest of society just give up and let them take over?
What happened to what workers want? It seems unions don't really care about the rights of the workers they claim to represent - it seems they are only interested at getting what "they want."
My problem is that they are trying to get what they want by deducting wages from the salaries of Canadians. No other institution in the world does this and this no longer happens in most industrialized countries on the planet - including such socialist countries as Sweeden and the rest of Europe.
No to answer your specific questions ...
ReplyDelete1. There is a huge difference between a company spending profits on political activities and a union spending the earnings of workers. Unions are free to make profits in other ways and spend all of that money on political contributions. I would never suggest otherwise. Your notion of opting out of deferred pay raises doesn't even make sense so i'm not going to attempt to respond to that. Why would an employee want to opt of of a pay raise? This is about the ability to opt out of a MANDATORY pay deduction.
2. This question is about details. I am very firm on the principle here but have flexibility on the details. THe principle is about the right of the individual worker to be able to opt out of a MADATORY wage deduciton that goes towards partisan political activity.
With respect to the mechanics of it, i would recommend we take the lead from the European Council of Human Rights or any of the countries that have tackled this issue. Again, the McClung resolution is about a principle while you are trying to get bogged down in details.
Lets agree first on the principle that individual workers must have the option to opt out of MANDATORY wage deductions that go towards partisan political activity as a fundamental right - then we can get into the details.
3. this resolution doesn't say anything about a union not being able to engage in political activity. It goes to the core of how it pays for that activity. If union workers want to donate thier entire pay cheque to help get the NDP elected they are free to do that. I'm not sure if i understood exactly what you mean with this question though ... so i don't know if i am addressing your point here.
4. What is the "net public interest benefit" of stripping individuals from their rights so that unions can covertly pay for advertizing that slanders their political opponents?
What is the "net public benefit" of taking mandatory wage deducitons from people who either have differing policial views from their union or don't want to participate in politics at all?
In your world, if i am a PC supporter that has no choice but to work in a unionized environment because of the industry I work in, I am forced to pay for pro-NDP (or anti- PC) ads through mandatory wage deductions. Then you want me to use the rest of my money to support the PC cause i actually believe in?
What is the net benefit to the individual worker? Your net public interest benefit arguement is very full of holes and is a fancy way of saying "net union benefit".
The McClung resolution provides a "net public interst benefit" because it gives individual workers their rights. It also provides a "net public interest benefit" because it makes Canada's labour laws consistent with the rest of the industialized world - thus ensuring we are cometitive.
Finally, with respect to Lavigne, i can take out just as many quotes that support my position. You can't find one paragraph within a very long legal decision and quote it to make your point. Jurisprudence is very complicated and you have to look at all the cases, the history and background of this case and the whole body of judicial work on the topic. This is extremely complicated and Lavigne isn't the last word. The legal opinion attached to the poplicy book is a great place to start.
I hope I addressed your questions.
Unfortunately, none of your points address the fundamental question in the McClung resolution. It's not about whether unions should engage in political activity, it's how that activity is financed. Its about an individual employee's right to opt out of MANDATORY wage deductions that go towards partisan political activity.
PP