Last week, with a midnight deadline looming, General Motors Canada struck a deal with their workers' union, Unifor, to avert a strike and allow GM's Canadian operations to continue uninterrupted.
As with most labour negotiations, this couldn't have happened without both sides putting a little water in their wine. And crucial to this deal was Unifor's willingness to agree that new employees would be put onto a defined-contribution pension plan. With any luck this move will rub off on their union brothers and sisters working in government.
Given the number of Canadians who have no employer-based pension plans at all, the details of different types of pension plans might seem unimportant. But when it comes to the prospective risk and costs faced by an employer, the difference between defined-benefit and defined-contribution plans cannot be overstated.
In short, defined-benefit plans guarantee retirees a certain level of retirement income, regardless of how much money is in their pension fund. In contrast, defined-contribution plans pay out based on a pension fund's balance and return on investment -- meaning that if the return is lower, so is the payout.
While defined-benefit plans are preferred by many retirees, the flipside is that they can be extremely expensive for employers, who are required to cover the difference when pension fund returns are lower than expected. In GM Canada's case, the pension fund faced a shortfall of $3.6 billion as of last year.
These shortfalls can occur because the employer didn't put in enough money, because the employee didn't put in enough money, because investment earnings were lower than expected, because retirees are living longer than expected, because the inflation rate is higher than expected or any combination of these factors. In other words, with defined-benefit pension plans it's really easy to get some projection made decades in the past wrong and end up with a shortfall.
Unifor first seemed to acknowledge that defined-benefit pensions were on the way out in 2012, when they agreed to put new employees onto a hybrid defined-benefit/contribution plan. With this latest deal, they have all but conceded that the era of defined-benefit pension plans in the private sector is in its twilight.
While it's great news for GM that they have a union that takes a realistic approach on pensions, the news is less great when it comes to our government employee unions.
Take the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), which recently reached a tentative agreement with Canada Post. Even though Canada Post faces a pension shortfall of $6.2 billion, all reports suggest that CUPW did not make any concessions on defined-benefit pensions. For an organization that is barely breaking even in the face of falling demand for its services and higher costs, this hardly seems prudent.
This mindset should alarm Canadians who are concerned about getting value for money for the taxes they pay.
And then there is the broader issue of most government employees. Detailed numbers are hard to pin down, but one estimate by the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses put the figure for unfunded government employee pension plans nationwide at around $300 billion.
So why does Unifor get it on pensions, while CUPW doesn't?
No doubt Unifor would have liked to have kept defined-benefit pensions. But to their credit, they looked at the bigger picture: better to preserve jobs by giving up some benefits, than try to dig in on a huge expense to the employer and jeopardize everything. After all, GM Canada doesn't have bottomless pockets (although they have been known to come begging for a bailout from taxpayers).
But government employee unions like CUPW have no such incentive to compromise. In CUPW's view, governments have unlimited resources, since they can always get more money from taxpayers by raising taxes. They know that government will not go out of business no matter how hard they bargain. This mindset should alarm Canadians who are concerned about getting value for money for the taxes they pay.
Going forward, CUPW and other government employee unions face an important choice. They can continue to cling to an expensive and unsustainable pension model that is all but extinct outside the insulated walls of government. Or they can take a page from their more pragmatic private sector brethren, and choose to be part of the solution -- helping ensure both prudent use of taxpayer-funded resources, and a more sustainable footing for government services over the long term.
Follow HuffPost Canada Blogs on Facebook
Also on HuffPost:
Without trade unions promoting the aim of a 40-hour work week, there would have been no pressure on employers to limit the amount of time employees spend working. While of course employees are free to choose how long they spend working, trade unions worked to ensure this was the choice of a worker, not their boss. The movement for an 8-hour work day peaked at the turn of the 20th century, just before the First World War. And more recent moves towards re-imagining the working day have seen big businesses use technology to limit after-hours email traffic. Arguably such ideas are borne out of trade union campaigning more than a century ago.
While European rules introduced the basic legal right to paid-for annual leave, it is the trade unions which fought for enhanced entitlements over and above the basic EU provision. Since the early 2000s, the Trades Union Congress has fought for increases to the amount of leave, which is now the equivalent of 5.6 working weeks (PDF).
Before the Employers and Workmen Act 1875, workers were the only ones who could be sued for breach of an employment contract. The increased organisation of trade unions and the Great Reform Act prompted both Tory and Liberal governments of the time to take a renewed interest in employment laws. Ultimately this brought about greater parity in the relationship between employer and employee.
Trade unions were instrumental in lobbying government for the provision of leave for new parents - at workers' own discretion. In 1998, the Trades Union Congress launched a campaign to ensure that proposed parental leave would be flexible and well promoted to employees.
Cases of discrimination aren't uncommon, but they'd be a lot more if it weren't for trade unions. As the European Commission says: "Trade unions play a primary role in fighting against discrimination through a variety of actions and tools". They negotiate with employers, support victims, and monitor discrimination cases - keeping up-to-date with the latest case law so that we don't have to.
Although trade unions had reservations about the effect of a national minimum wage, they declared their support for the policy in the mid-1980s. By the 1990s, scholarly evidence caught up with the unions - arguing that a minimum wage would not reduce adult-age employment (PDF). And through the Labour Party, trade unions were able to influence policy in government after the 1997 election.
In the 1840s, unions that were highly centralised and which employed full-time officers brought about negotiation and arbitration as their preferred method of achieving a good deal for their members. This had a significant effect in improving worker/industrialist relations, and while not always successful, they fundamentally changed workplace relationships for the better.
In the 1830s, a Chartist movement was organised around 6 clear principles - and mobilised mass support for its aims through petitions. Just like trade unions, the Chartists' relied on collective aims amongst like-minded people - most visible in the form of three 'monster' petitions presented to Parliament. These contained millions of signatures and proved a desire amongst workers for improved working conditions.
The history of the working week lies in industrial practices, and in Britain factories operated 6 days a week to maintain efficiencies of scale. Sundays were always the day of rest. But trade unions fought to secure the Saturday for workers, too. And now the Monday-to-Friday work week is accepted across industries, as the LSE notes.
Follow Aaron Wudrick on Twitter: www.twitter.com/awudrick