Monday, 31 December 2007
The Lure of the Alberta Tar Sands
Thinking about moving to Fort McMurray, Alberta?
You might want to read a bit before you do. Check out these articles:
You might want to read a bit before you do. Check out these articles:
- Temporary Labour or Disposable Workers?
- Working Full-Time
- For Many Women, Alberta's Boom a Bust
- Notes from the Tar Pits: Flying Above an Open Pit Graveyard
Will we be making the same mistakes in Saskatchewan, or will we learn from it?
Sunday, 30 December 2007
Unions Passing Resolutions to Honor, Assist Folksinger/Storyteller Bruce "Utah" Phillips
I recently received the e-mail appeal below. I've decided to post it in it's entirety.
Unions Passing Resolutions to Honor, Assist Folksinger/Storyteller Bruce"Utah"Phillips.The great folksinger and storyteller Utah Phillips (www.utahphillips.org/) has had to retire from performing due to chronic and serious heart problems that have plagued him for years. In recognition of his great love for and work on behalf of the union movement and working people of the United States, several union locals have passed resolutions honoring Phillips and attaching donations for his "retirement fund.".Unable to travel or stand the rigors of performing a two-hour concert, Phillips has seen his main source of income vanish just when his medical problems are demanding more money for treatment and medications..In response, Local 1180 of the Communications Workers of America (NYC), and both the Detroit and the James Connolly (Upstate New York) Branches of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) have recently passed the following resolution:.Bruce "Utah" Phillips is a truly unique American treasure. Not just a great folk song writer and interpreter, not just a great storyteller, Utah has preserved and presented the history of our nation's working people and union movement for audiences throughout the world. His recorded work keeps these songs and stories alive. He has spoken up against the injustices of boss-dominated capitalism and worked for peace and justice for more than 40 years. Now Utah finds himself unable to continue performing due to severe heart problems. We wish to honor and recognize his great talent, spirit and love for the working people and the union movement of the United States..Therefore, we move to pass this resolution in gratitude for all he has done and will continue to do in his work and life. We also wish to contribute $____ to Utah Phillips in appreciation and in solidarity as he and his wife, Joanna Robinson, deal with his health and the loss of his ability to work.
.This news is being released with the hope that other unions, anti-war and labor-affiliated organizations will respond in kind by passing this or similar resolutions in appreciation for all Utah Phillips has done for the cause of unions and peace..Another way that organizations and individuals can help is by purchasing some or all of Utah's vast catalog of songs and stories. All of his CDs and more information are available at his website, www.utahphillips.org/, and Utah has begun posting podcasts up there that you can download and listen to!
.You can also order his CDs online (credit card sales) through, www.cdbaby.com/, but be advised that prices are cheaper and more of that money will go into Utah's hands if you order directly from him. More info on his website..Here's the address for CD orders and to send a donation:
.U. Utah PhillipsNo Guff RecordsP.O. Box 1235Nevada City, CA95959(530) 265-2476.Utah has given so much of himself to the labor and peace movements. It is great news that some unions and many have chosen to give something back to him, to allow him and his wife, Joanna Robinson, to rest easy, work on his long-term health, and not have to worry about where money will come for the medicine and bills he has to pay.
.Please forward and post this release widely!.In Solidarity, George MannContact: George Mannemail: georgeandjulius@att.net
phone: 212-923-6372
Saturday, 29 December 2007
CCPA Releases New Report on Free Trade
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) has just released a new report on Free Trade, in advance of the 20th anniversary of the agreement signed on January 2, 1988.
See the accompanying News Release entitled: Free trade has failed to live up to its promises—study
The full report is entitled: 20 Years Later: Has Free Trade Delivered on its Promise? (in Adobe PDF format)
Excerpt from News Release:
See the accompanying News Release entitled: Free trade has failed to live up to its promises—study
The full report is entitled: 20 Years Later: Has Free Trade Delivered on its Promise? (in Adobe PDF format)
Excerpt from News Release:
"OTTAWA— Twenty years after Canada signed the Free Trade Agreement its biggest boosters have grown wealthier but promises of better jobs and rising living standards fell short, says a study released by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
The Canada-US Free Trade Agreement was signed on January 2, 1988. The study examines what’s happened since: It takes a sample of 41 Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) member companies – the leading supporter of free trade – and finds they shrank their workforce by 19.6% while their revenues grew by 127%."
Friday, 28 December 2007
Breaking the chain: The antitrust case against Wal-Mart
I was recently reminded of a great article that appeared in the July 2006 edition of Harper's Magazine entitled: "Breaking the chain: The antitrust case against Wal-Mart" by Barry C. Lynn.
It's a fascinating piece that talks about the unbelievable power this huge corporation wields at all levels. Well worth the read.
It's a fascinating piece that talks about the unbelievable power this huge corporation wields at all levels. Well worth the read.
A conversation with the premier, Brad Wall
The Friday, December 28, 2007 issue of the Regina Leader-Post carries a year-end interview with new Saskatchewan Premier, Brad Wall.
"In an interview with James Wood, who covers the provincial scene for the Saskatchewan News Network, Wall talked about the learning curve of his early days in power and what the new year has in store." Read more ...
Role of trade unions still misunderstood by general public
Here's an interesting article by John Clarke for the Daily Commercial News and Construction Record.
"According to the latest opinion poll on the subject, the role of trade unions in the civil society is as much misunderstood as ever by the great unwashed.
Unions themselves don’t seem much the wiser, concentrating as they do so heavily on collective bargaining." Read more ......
Thursday, 27 December 2007
Benazir Bhutto Assassinated
December 27, 2007Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated today in a suicide attack that also killed at least 20 others at the end of a campaign rally near the capital, Islamabad.
Coverage:
New York Times
truthout.org
Regina Leader-Post
CBC
(Photo: Tariq Mahmood / AFP)
Wednesday, 26 December 2007
The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard
"The Story of Stuff With Annie Leonard" is an engaging new short film that explains the "materials economy" in 20 fun-filled minutes. Produced by Free Range Studios, which developed "The Meatrix" - an animated short about factory farming that ranks among the cleverest uses of Internet technologies to deliver a politically progressive message - The Story of Stuff features Annie Leonard, amusing graphics, lots of humor, and a complicated analysis presented in an easy-to-understand conversational tone."Watch the teaser video below. You can view entire 20 minute video at: www.storyofstuff.com.
Monday, 24 December 2007
Why Card Majority can be more democratic than “so-called” Secret Ballot
(Remember, in Canada, 5 out of 11 jurisdictions use mandatory secret ballot systems and 6 out of 11 use card majority systems for union certification)
Of those jurisdictions in Canada that use the mandatory secret ballot system for union certification, most require 50% plus 1 of “those voting” as the threshold for majority support. They normally set quorum at 50% plus 1 of “total eligible voters” who must vote in order for the vote to be accepted.
So, if 50% plus 1 voters of 50% plus 1 of total eligible voters cast a ballot in support of a union, the workplace can be certified with just marginally over 25% support of the total eligible voters (let’s say 26% for the sake of the argument).
Put another way, you have 100 employees. In order for a secret ballot vote to be legal, at least 51 of them must vote. And in order to have a majority of the 51 voters, 26 must vote in favour. So in the secret ballot system with “majority quorum” – 26 voters can make the decision for 100.
Under the card majority system – the lowest possible number of employees who must support a union out of a workplace of 100 is 51. (That’s 25 more than the above system). Some jurisdictions set a slightly higher threshold. In other words, an absolute majority of “all eligible employees” must be achieved through a card sign-up.
Now given this, why do unions prefer the card majority system to the other system?
Because, under the “so-called” secret ballot system, the fact is – it really isn’t a secret ballot.
You see, employees must usually come to a balloting location to cast their vote. Or send their ballot in through a system that identifies the voter, but not the vote. The employer inevitably (and by law) has a representative there to observe employees who come to vote, or send in ballots. (In fairness, the union has someone there too). BUT, if an employee does not come to vote – the employer knows, for absolute certain, that the particular employee DID NOT vote in favour of the union. If the employee does come to vote – the employer knows that the particular employee had a 50 - 50 chance of being a union supporter.
With any union drive, there will be those employees who are vocally opposed to unionization of the workplace. Management is well aware of who those people are, it is no secret. If you know who voted, and you know who will vote against a union, it doesn’t take much, through the process of elimination, to figure out who the supporters are. There are lots of cases where workers have been fired for being union supporters.
Furthermore, using our example of 100 employees – management is at a significant power and strategic advantage if only 26 people out of 51 voters voted to support – because the other 49 workers are too fearful to come out to vote and risk being thought of as a union sympathizer by the boss. Especially if the boss is openly hostile to unionization, and has been able to send that message through “expressing their opinion”.
And this says nothing of the whole issue of the anti-union tactics that 94% of employers already admit they are using when they find out that the employees are considering unionization. (12% of whom readily admit that what they are doing is illegal). See Sara Slinn's: Anti-union intimidation is real.
Let’s at least be honest about the reasons why the Sask. Party is proposing to change the certification process in Saskatchewan – it hasn’t got the slightest thing to do with “workplace democracy”.
Of those jurisdictions in Canada that use the mandatory secret ballot system for union certification, most require 50% plus 1 of “those voting” as the threshold for majority support. They normally set quorum at 50% plus 1 of “total eligible voters” who must vote in order for the vote to be accepted.
So, if 50% plus 1 voters of 50% plus 1 of total eligible voters cast a ballot in support of a union, the workplace can be certified with just marginally over 25% support of the total eligible voters (let’s say 26% for the sake of the argument).
Put another way, you have 100 employees. In order for a secret ballot vote to be legal, at least 51 of them must vote. And in order to have a majority of the 51 voters, 26 must vote in favour. So in the secret ballot system with “majority quorum” – 26 voters can make the decision for 100.
Under the card majority system – the lowest possible number of employees who must support a union out of a workplace of 100 is 51. (That’s 25 more than the above system). Some jurisdictions set a slightly higher threshold. In other words, an absolute majority of “all eligible employees” must be achieved through a card sign-up.
Now given this, why do unions prefer the card majority system to the other system?
Because, under the “so-called” secret ballot system, the fact is – it really isn’t a secret ballot.
You see, employees must usually come to a balloting location to cast their vote. Or send their ballot in through a system that identifies the voter, but not the vote. The employer inevitably (and by law) has a representative there to observe employees who come to vote, or send in ballots. (In fairness, the union has someone there too). BUT, if an employee does not come to vote – the employer knows, for absolute certain, that the particular employee DID NOT vote in favour of the union. If the employee does come to vote – the employer knows that the particular employee had a 50 - 50 chance of being a union supporter.
With any union drive, there will be those employees who are vocally opposed to unionization of the workplace. Management is well aware of who those people are, it is no secret. If you know who voted, and you know who will vote against a union, it doesn’t take much, through the process of elimination, to figure out who the supporters are. There are lots of cases where workers have been fired for being union supporters.
Furthermore, using our example of 100 employees – management is at a significant power and strategic advantage if only 26 people out of 51 voters voted to support – because the other 49 workers are too fearful to come out to vote and risk being thought of as a union sympathizer by the boss. Especially if the boss is openly hostile to unionization, and has been able to send that message through “expressing their opinion”.
And this says nothing of the whole issue of the anti-union tactics that 94% of employers already admit they are using when they find out that the employees are considering unionization. (12% of whom readily admit that what they are doing is illegal). See Sara Slinn's: Anti-union intimidation is real.
Let’s at least be honest about the reasons why the Sask. Party is proposing to change the certification process in Saskatchewan – it hasn’t got the slightest thing to do with “workplace democracy”.
Saturday, 22 December 2007
AFL's Temporary Foreign Worker Advocate publishes 6-month report
In November 2007, the Alberta Federation of Labour's Temporary Foreign Worker Advocate published her 6-month report.The report outlines the Advocate's activities, highlights the disturbing problems inherent to the Temporary Foreign Worker program, details the exploitation of numerous foreign workers across the province, and offers 21 recommendations for both the federal and provincial governments to fix the problems.
In six months, the Advocate took more than 1,400 calls and opened case files for 123 foreign workers. The Advocate also spent a great deal of time speaking about the foreign worker program and the exploitation faced by foreign workers to community groups, government, and others.
The Advocate concludes that the Temporary Foreign Worker program is an unmitigated disaster for both the people involved and for Alberta.
Click here to read the full report. (in Adobe PDF format)
Happy Christmas (War Is Over) - John Lennon
This is a very powerful video - Happy Christmas. Thanks to my friend Pat for sending it to me.
Yes Goldilocks - Saskatchewan's laws will be the WORST in Canada
Leader-Post financial editor, Bruce Johnstone appears to be ready to accept the arguments of the Minister of Advanced Education, Employment and Labour on the scope and ramifications of the Sask. Party's new anti-labour legislation without having had the benefit of a discussion with someone who may have a different point of view. His opinion column entitled: "Goldilocks would like new labour legislation" appears in the Saturday, Dec. 22 issue.
I quite like Mr. Johnstone, he is a very pleasant man, and I've always enjoyed our chats. I look forward to the opportunity to sit down with him soon and have a more comprehensive dialogue about these matters.
I can assure Mr. Johnstone, without fear of exaggeration, that the legislative changes (as written) proposed by the Sask. Party government will in fact transform Saskatchewan's laws respecting "union certification", "employer communication" and "essential services" into the category of the worst or tied-for-worst provisions in Canada.
I'll touch on just a couple of items in this post to clear up some of the questions or points raised by Mr. Johnstone in his article:
1. All other jurisdictions in Canada have some form of "essential services" legislation. Actually, the jury is still out on Nova Scotia - despite broad-based public opposition, the conservative government of Rodney MacDonald tabled legislation to strip away certain health-care workers right to strike (i.e. essential services). The opposition Liberals and NDP in the Nova Scotia legislature do not support the Bill, and subsequently the minority governing Conservatives have refused to put the Bill to a vote - so apparently the Bill will die on the order paper. As a result, there is no essential services legislation in Nova Scotia - see this CBC report.
As for other jurisdications - some have accompanying "anti-scab" legislation, some have other mitigating legislation. Many jurisdictions engaged in broad based, comprehensive and respectful consultations, especially with the people who will be affected. And (I believe) NONE have legislation with such wide and sweeping powers that may effectively allow a "Cabinet" to designate every worker in the province (public or private) as an essential service worker. See Section 2 (i) (xi) and Section 21 (c) of Bill 5 - what do these mean? (And that's just one question - there are others, many, many others).
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court of Canada decision respecting HEU BC, active discussion is occuring across the county regarding potential Charter challenges of other existing "essential services" legislation.
2. Saskatchewan's legislation allows a certification vote to be triggered at 25% support. This is a moot point - because the practical application of the law is that unions in Saskatchewan rarely (if ever) apply to the LRB for a certification vote with support that low. So if the Sask. Party wanted to put the "trigger percentage" in the middle of the pack - they should have done that. They haven't - they have set it at the highest level of any other jurisdiction in Canada. A mid-point trigger would be 35 or 40% not 45%. See Bill 6.
Further, there are a number of legal questions that arise with respect to what constitutes majority support (i.e. 50% plus one "of those voting", or 50% plus one of "all eligible voters"), and where and how the definition of quorum is established for the purposes of certification votes. The Premier and the Minister have actually said things about this that directly contradict each other. Which one is accurate?
And how is it, that moving from a system that allows for an "automatic certification process based on card support" (which, by the way, is in place in the majority of jurisdictions in this country - 6 out of 11) to one that doesn't (which is in place in the minority of jursidictions in this country - 5 out of 11) is being competitive and consistent with other provinces?
In closing, what other jurisdictions in Canada confer upon an employer the ability to legally interfere with an employee's constitutional protection under the Freedom of Association provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights? The Supreme Court of Canada is clear - given the acknowledged power imbalance that exists between a worker and an employer, it is no business of an employer whether or not an employee wishes to be a member of a union. The employers "opinion" in the matter is not required, justified, nor warranted.
A few years ago I signed up a worker to a union in Westlock, Alberta. During that process he said to me: "My employer is my employer, he's not my mother."
Workers have no legislated right or entitlement to interfere in an employer's decision to join a "Business Association" or a "Chamber of Commerce". Why is the reverse necessary? Democratic Workplaces, Fair and Balanced Labour Laws - Indeed!
Season's Greetings and Best Wishes for the New Year. Give me a call Bruce, and we can go for a coffee, it's on me.
I quite like Mr. Johnstone, he is a very pleasant man, and I've always enjoyed our chats. I look forward to the opportunity to sit down with him soon and have a more comprehensive dialogue about these matters.
I can assure Mr. Johnstone, without fear of exaggeration, that the legislative changes (as written) proposed by the Sask. Party government will in fact transform Saskatchewan's laws respecting "union certification", "employer communication" and "essential services" into the category of the worst or tied-for-worst provisions in Canada.
I'll touch on just a couple of items in this post to clear up some of the questions or points raised by Mr. Johnstone in his article:
1. All other jurisdictions in Canada have some form of "essential services" legislation. Actually, the jury is still out on Nova Scotia - despite broad-based public opposition, the conservative government of Rodney MacDonald tabled legislation to strip away certain health-care workers right to strike (i.e. essential services). The opposition Liberals and NDP in the Nova Scotia legislature do not support the Bill, and subsequently the minority governing Conservatives have refused to put the Bill to a vote - so apparently the Bill will die on the order paper. As a result, there is no essential services legislation in Nova Scotia - see this CBC report.
As for other jurisdications - some have accompanying "anti-scab" legislation, some have other mitigating legislation. Many jurisdictions engaged in broad based, comprehensive and respectful consultations, especially with the people who will be affected. And (I believe) NONE have legislation with such wide and sweeping powers that may effectively allow a "Cabinet" to designate every worker in the province (public or private) as an essential service worker. See Section 2 (i) (xi) and Section 21 (c) of Bill 5 - what do these mean? (And that's just one question - there are others, many, many others).
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court of Canada decision respecting HEU BC, active discussion is occuring across the county regarding potential Charter challenges of other existing "essential services" legislation.
2. Saskatchewan's legislation allows a certification vote to be triggered at 25% support. This is a moot point - because the practical application of the law is that unions in Saskatchewan rarely (if ever) apply to the LRB for a certification vote with support that low. So if the Sask. Party wanted to put the "trigger percentage" in the middle of the pack - they should have done that. They haven't - they have set it at the highest level of any other jurisdiction in Canada. A mid-point trigger would be 35 or 40% not 45%. See Bill 6.
Further, there are a number of legal questions that arise with respect to what constitutes majority support (i.e. 50% plus one "of those voting", or 50% plus one of "all eligible voters"), and where and how the definition of quorum is established for the purposes of certification votes. The Premier and the Minister have actually said things about this that directly contradict each other. Which one is accurate?
And how is it, that moving from a system that allows for an "automatic certification process based on card support" (which, by the way, is in place in the majority of jurisdictions in this country - 6 out of 11) to one that doesn't (which is in place in the minority of jursidictions in this country - 5 out of 11) is being competitive and consistent with other provinces?
In closing, what other jurisdictions in Canada confer upon an employer the ability to legally interfere with an employee's constitutional protection under the Freedom of Association provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights? The Supreme Court of Canada is clear - given the acknowledged power imbalance that exists between a worker and an employer, it is no business of an employer whether or not an employee wishes to be a member of a union. The employers "opinion" in the matter is not required, justified, nor warranted.
A few years ago I signed up a worker to a union in Westlock, Alberta. During that process he said to me: "My employer is my employer, he's not my mother."
Workers have no legislated right or entitlement to interfere in an employer's decision to join a "Business Association" or a "Chamber of Commerce". Why is the reverse necessary? Democratic Workplaces, Fair and Balanced Labour Laws - Indeed!
Season's Greetings and Best Wishes for the New Year. Give me a call Bruce, and we can go for a coffee, it's on me.
Friday, 21 December 2007
Semi driver rams picketer at Sun Rype strike in Kelowna
Aaron Ekman over at the Pacific Tribune Blog has posted a disturbing video of a semi driver ramming a picketer on the line on strike at Sun Rype in Kelowna, B.C. (The Semi has a Saskatchewan licence plate and "Regina, Sask." on the door)
According to the YouTube descriptor this is:
Warning - Strong Language on the video which can be viewed by following this link.
According to the YouTube descriptor this is:
"Couple of drivers from europe on a govn't grant work thing- having a tough time in the confined space behind the fence- JACKNIFE! JACKPOT! They haven't come back."Were these drivers hired under the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program (SINP)? There is more information available about the SINP on the Saskatchewan Trucking Association web-site click here.
Saskatchewan will have WORST laws in Canada
It's confirmed. Preliminary analysis reveals that, if the current proposed changes to Saskatchewan Labour Legislation are passed, we will have the worst or tied-for-worst legislation in Canada related to union certification and essential services.
And if, as certain businesses and some politicians say - the proposed changes are "only modest" - that means our existing legislation couldn't have been that biased in favour of labour in the first place.
People have been fed a steady diet of untrue and distorted perceptions of what Saskatchewan's labour laws say - mostly from businesses and organizations that have a tiny fraction of their memberships unionized in the first place, if at all.
A classic distortion of reality was illustrated in a recent article in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix: Labour legislation changes welcomed - where the Executive Director of the North Saskatoon Business Association (NSBA) is quoted as saying:
"People can be intimidated into voting one way if you stick up your hand, so with a secret ballot you can vote with your own conscience, not necessarily what anyone is telling you," she said. (emphasis added)
There hasn't been a union certified in this province by "show of hands" - EVER! Leaving that impression is quite frankly dishonest. Something we've come to expect from certain organizations.
Again, if our laws are so "pro-union and pro-labour" it would have taken more than simply "modest changes" to go from the middle of the pack to the bottom of the barrel.
Here's what some labour leaders have to say about it.
And here's what Leader-Post political columnist Murray Mandryk has to say about it. I have a proposition - you don't think Saskatchewan's new "certification" and "essential services" legislation will be the WORST in Canada? Find me something worse, and I'll gladly post a link to it.
And if, as certain businesses and some politicians say - the proposed changes are "only modest" - that means our existing legislation couldn't have been that biased in favour of labour in the first place.
People have been fed a steady diet of untrue and distorted perceptions of what Saskatchewan's labour laws say - mostly from businesses and organizations that have a tiny fraction of their memberships unionized in the first place, if at all.
A classic distortion of reality was illustrated in a recent article in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix: Labour legislation changes welcomed - where the Executive Director of the North Saskatoon Business Association (NSBA) is quoted as saying:
"People can be intimidated into voting one way if you stick up your hand, so with a secret ballot you can vote with your own conscience, not necessarily what anyone is telling you," she said. (emphasis added)
There hasn't been a union certified in this province by "show of hands" - EVER! Leaving that impression is quite frankly dishonest. Something we've come to expect from certain organizations.
Again, if our laws are so "pro-union and pro-labour" it would have taken more than simply "modest changes" to go from the middle of the pack to the bottom of the barrel.
Here's what some labour leaders have to say about it.
And here's what Leader-Post political columnist Murray Mandryk has to say about it. I have a proposition - you don't think Saskatchewan's new "certification" and "essential services" legislation will be the WORST in Canada? Find me something worse, and I'll gladly post a link to it.
Thursday, 20 December 2007
Wednesday, 19 December 2007
Saskatchewan Workers' Charter and Human Rights will be stripped away by new legislation
On Wednesday, December 19, 2007 the Brad Wall Sask Party government introduced two pieces of labour legislation in the form of Bill 5 - The Public Service Essential Services Act and Bill 6 - The Trade Union Amendment Act, 2007.
These two pieces of legislation, if passed in their current form, would result in Saskatchewan becoming the jurisdiction that has the worst union certification legislation and the worst essential services legislation in Canada - bar none.
In a single afternoon, Saskatchewan has gone from a province that had a highly respected and internationally recognized reputation of fair, balanced and competitive labour legislation to one of leading the pack in the race to the bottom. Brilliant retention and recruitment strategy!
See the SFL Official News Release.
These two pieces of legislation, if passed in their current form, would result in Saskatchewan becoming the jurisdiction that has the worst union certification legislation and the worst essential services legislation in Canada - bar none.
In a single afternoon, Saskatchewan has gone from a province that had a highly respected and internationally recognized reputation of fair, balanced and competitive labour legislation to one of leading the pack in the race to the bottom. Brilliant retention and recruitment strategy!
See the SFL Official News Release.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)