The International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have confirmed that broadly-based collective bargaining is the best mechanism to build a healthy middle class. In short, when workers, through their unions, are able to bargain freely for decent wages, benefits and pensions, there are benefits for the middle class and for society as a whole.
In the not-so-distant past, Canadian governments also endorsed the value and purpose of free collective bargaining. The current federal government, however, has made it a habit of intervening in the economy on behalf of employers and against the people who work for them.
This is evident in the government's plan to make it easier for employers to bring in migrant workers and pay them 15 per cent less than the prevailing wage, and in changes to employment insurance legislation that will force unemployed workers to travel farther afield and to take almost any job at only 70 per cent of their previous wages.
The government has loaded the dice against employees, and this is especially evident in their interventions in labour disputes. In May, they used back-to-work legislation on behalf of Canadian Pacific Rail in its dispute with engineers and other workers. Last year the government intervened in two Air Canada labour disputes, and prior to that one at Canada Post.
All of this should trouble Canadians whether or not they are unionized workers. The erosion of collective bargaining is linked directly to a growing income gap in our society. Corporate profits are at near or record highs while the wages of Canadians have stagnated for an entire generation. There is a direct relationship between attacks upon unions and a shrinking of the Canadian middle class.
Left to its own devices, free collective bargaining really does work for the common good. Unions have been able to ensure that workers share, at least to some extent, in the corporate profits that they helped create. Unions have been successful in reducing systemic wage gaps in workplaces. Being in a union means better wages for women, workers of colour, aboriginal people and people with disabilities.
The more equal wage structure in unionized workplaces sets wage and benefit standards that spill over into other workplaces. Employees tend to be paid better when they live in communities with unionized workers earning decent wages. Finally, countries with strong labour movements have a larger, more vibrant middle class and achieve greater societal fairness because unions advocate for government policies that benefit all working people, not just their own members.
Our government's heavy-handed interventions in the labour market weaken basic labour rights, and that hurts all middle class Canadians. This meddling tips the scales in one direction and means that companies do not have to take bargaining seriously. They can just sit back and wait for the government to ride to their rescue if talks reach an impasse.
If workers are left with no outlet to seek fair compensation and working conditions, they will find other means of collective expression. Their frustration could result in spontaneous work disruptions, with a profound effect on productivity.
The government is setting the stage for an explosion of wage demands in the future, when unemployment falls and labour markets tighten. After years of frustration and stagnant wages, workers will insist on catching up. Heavy-handed government intervention, as we've seen at Canada Post, Air Canada and CP Rail, invites lingering resentment and will take all of those outstanding issues to subsequent bargaining.
For generations, Canadians have endorsed the purpose and understood the value of free collective bargaining. To a great extent, their destiny and that of their communities depends upon it. Employees must be free to negotiate freely for wages that will allow them to pay their mortgages and put their children through school. A healthy middle class means a prosperous Canada.
Follow Ken Georgetti on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CanadianLabour
Tim Hudak: Part 2: Give Workers the Chance to Say "No" to Old-Time Union Bosses
So rather than be upset that non unionized folk get crappier compensation, your reaction is to blame unions rather than the employer?
Also not sure why your vision of the free market seems to not include collective bargaining.
The worse form of economic activity of a company (from the public's point of view) is a monopoly. Isn't a union a labour monopoly? Why should select groups of people have the legal right to extort more than their fair share of wages and benefits at the public's expense? Unions in Canada are mostly in governments and other monopolies and if they were a company, they would be fined and thrown in jail for price fixing. In their case it is wage fixing!
The market is the only way to set a fair wage and where the jobs are in a monopoly, they should be set at equivalent wages in the market economy. Unions have the job of getting the maximum wages and benefits for their members and this is in direct opposition to the interests of the public. If workers want to participate in profit sharing, they should buy shares in the company like anybody else. The idea that it is the workers that create the profits is just silly. Without capital, the right product, distribution, public demand and even the right government services, there would be no profits at all.
It isn't rich people that pay the unfair extra wages to union members. It is the public who pays through higher prices for
I disagree that Hudak doesn't understand this.
Check out "cult of impotence" by Linda McQuaig as to why Hudak and other conservatives don't really want a middle class
Ever been profiled?
How long's your hair? Got any tattoos? Does he go out with girl's? Is that a hearing aid? Does he take smoke breaks? What's your Facebook password...............
Most of the outrages in cushy and unbelievable settlements ( see severances while keeping your job) have occured in public service unions, who have used their political clout to extract settlements that would never have occurred in private industry. The Canadian taxpayer is now faced with billions of dollars in payments , so that governments can extricate itself from such outrageous clauses.
On the contrary, I think Mr. Hudak gets it , in spades !!!
Can anyone here actually cite an example of 'settlements that would never have occurred in private industry' ?
I have seen the "lazy union worker", I have also seen lazy private sector workers - incompetency is an unfortunate trait, but not political. But, if everyone was making a decent income, top employees to "incompetent", our society would still be stronger, wealthier, happier, healthier and more educated.
Its not just a platitude.
P.S. we also used to make damn good footware and leather goods. Thanks NAFTA.
I would rather stand with the unions, than be ground to dust by the 1%.
This isn't about jealousy.
It isn't about envy.
It's about making sure my daughter has a chance of living her life with dignity.
If workers' unions are bad because they want to improve the lot of the people who produce the wealth, and who have invested their working lives and their families' welfare to do so, then why are shareholders' "unions" good, when all that they have invested is money, the dividends and capital gains resulting from which enjoy prefential tax treatment.
Hudak illustrates all too vividly the Regressive Preservative ideological mantra that the rights of money supersede the rights of people.
Where in the world do you get your information? Unions fight for workers rights, and more money for them, and they let not to let them get s*rewed by the corporation.
Human nature and the protection of a union have costly consequences for companies that are just too time consuming and inflexible. It just doesn't work. I've worked in unionized environments for a few decades and I know what I'm talking about.
Give a person a real ownership role and a share in the profits and everything is better.
I suspect they do not. I suspect that the last twenty years have been a concerted attack on the public perception of unions in order to destroy them, and to reduce the bulk of us to the ''working poor'' - a frightened and expendable resource to further enrich the coffers of the few.
The weight of history is against them, of course, but the rich have always been amnesiacs when it comes even to the recent past, and rarely have they realized their peril until the rest of us have reminded them of our power, almost inevitably through violence.
Sadly, they seem on a repetitive collision course, once again.