3390 Questions and comments arising from the short presentations
This is an attempt to summarize my thoughts on your presentations. I am really pleased
with the effort you have put in and with the questions and comments in class.
1. Lay-offs at auto plants. Greg Bane. (Tuesday 24 Jan)
This report highlights the complexity of modern industry. That is there are many
variables to consider. The global free trade movement (such as the WTO – World Trade
Organization) presses for the removal of trade barriers. While this is likely good for
increased trade, production, and profit, it doesn’t guarantee a better global society. Nor
does it guarantee higher wages for workers because that depends also on supply and
demand for ever increasingly de-skilled workers across the globe. Freer trade also does
not guarantee a fair distribution of wealth across and within nations. That depends on the
relative power of nations, corporations and employees. Further, contrary to neo-classical
economic theory, workers and consumers do not base their preferences merely on
financial costs and benefits. Security of employment may be important enough for
workers that they are willing to accept lower wages for more job security. However,
typically workers do not have the choice because even in unionized workplaces, workers
have very little influence on how work is performed, what level of profit is required by
managers on behalf of shareholders.
Greg’s presentation also raises questions about the business efficiency of Ford and
General Motors. While there may be damaging trade barriers for American auto makers
in Japan and other oriental markets, questions do arise about business decisions such as
attempting to market gas guzzling pick-up trucks, 4 by 4s etc.
Another question is, if the American auto companies cannot (as they claim) afford to
subsidize benefits such as health care insurance, how seriously can we take the claim that
North Americans are getting richer? Exxon just today posted net profits of $10 billion for
the fourth quarter of 2005. The theory is that market forces will cause such wealth to
trickle down to everyone. Is this theory valid in light of apparently declining standards of
living beyond mere income? While Ford’s profits are less than those of Exxon, Greg
raised an interesting question, when is profit enough? Another question is “who should
decide?”
I have no answers here but the questions raised should be considered. The final questions
are “Can trade unions successfully represent workers’ interests in the system of global
capitalism?” and “If trade unions cannot represent their members in such matters,
can/should they be replaced by an alternative form of worker representation?”
2. Discrimination against agricultural workers (Nicole Barcelo , Thursday Jan 24)
Nicole raised the contentious issue of agricultural workers and their legal rights (or lack
thereof) in Alberta. Traditionally agricultural workers and their were exempt from
employment legislation, apparently because they were often relatives of the owners of the
family farm. Another issue was that workers not part of the family were seasonal and
casual workers brought in from other districts and provinces. Nicole noted, Hutterite
colonies have large “family” farming operations where quite young children work.
As Nicole pointed out, while family farms still exist in Alberta, much farming activity is
undertaken by corporate farming and complex agribusiness. While this now seems to
eliminate any validity that was attached to the “family farm reason” for excluding
agricultural workers from labour laws, the Alberta Provincial Government has shown no
inclination to amend the various statutes to include agricultural workers under such
legislation as the Workers’ Compensation Act, Labour Relations Code, Occupational
Health and Safety Act, and Employment Standards Act.
The Ontario case Dunsmore v. Ontario (Attorney General) [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1016 notes
that Ontario’s complete exclusion of agricultural workers from the right to form a trade
union breached section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That grants the right
of freedom of association. The Ontario Government sought to justify the exclusion as
necessary to save the family farm but the Supreme Court of Canada held that the absolute
exclusion was disproportionate to the objective sought by government and did not meet
the requirement of “minimum impairment” of freedom of association. The majority of the
Court did not consider the plaintiff’s allegation that the exclusion of agricultural workers
discriminated against them under section 15(1) of the Charter. Justice L’Heureux-Dube
accepted the argument that the exclusion of agricultural workers from the right to
unionize infringed the right of benefit of the law without discrimination.
It is clear that Alberta’s continued exclusion of agricultural workers from unionizing is
unlawful. However, unless the Alberta Government brings forward legislation to include
agricultural workers, the only solution for workers is to bring a Charter case against the
Government. Such a case would probably not require their inclusion in Health and Safety
and Employment Standards legislation but they might better negotiate concessions in
such areas through collective bargaining.
Do you consider it unfair that agricultural workers are excluded from labour laws that
protect other workers? Why? If you consider it unfair what advice would you give to
unions to remedy the problem?
3. Union hiring of pickets (Jan 29, Erin Becker)
Erin related the newspaper story (Globe & Mail) indicating the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters in the USA hired homeless people to walk their picket lines. The issues raised
by this case involve ethics and economics. As Erin noted, the use of hired pickets can be
practical because most of the striking workers were working elsewhere for higher wages
than they would receive on the picket line. Does this justify the action? The employer
may take the union less seriously if workers do not staff their own picket lines. There is
also the argument that the union is exploiting the homeless people by paying low wages.
On the other hand, how do the homeless employees view the matter? From our position
of relative comfort it may seem exploitative but do the homeless pickets see things that
way? Probably not. A question may arise as to whether such picketing would be lawful in
Canadian provincial and federal collective bargaining law as they are not employees of
the employer involved in the strike or lockout. Freedom of assembly, association and
speech are all protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada so it is possible
that such picketing may be permitted in Canada.
One positive aspect is arguably that it helps to equalize power between employers and
striking or locked out workers.
Please let me have any comments. I will post them here if you wish.
4. Canadian National Clean Up (Jan 29, Jason Barenec)
Jason’s story involves yet another spill caused by derailment of long trains. This raises
issues of law, ethics, business practices and societal wellbeing. It can be viewed as a
union issue through different lenses. Clearly derailments risk, and at times harm, the
lives, health and safety of workers on the train. No doubt the Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers and Railway Workers considers this as a bargaining and perhaps a grievance
issue. – that is a matter of working conditions of direct concern to its members.
A further issue is the broader social issue of exposing the public to risk of serious harm to
life, health and property. It would appear that unions feel muzzled by confidentiality of
workplace matters but there is surely an ethical issue of whether workers individual or
through their unions should be whistleblowers if they are aware that the company is
taking unjustified risks. A good question (which I can’t answer at present) is whether the
new federal whistleblower legislation would protect workers and their unions who make
public wrongdoing by their employers. Perhaps this could restore public acceptance of
unions? Are there oher industries where similar issues arise?