CAW says yes to CEP

This week at their national convention the CAW has unanimously approved a plan to merge the CAW with the CEP.  This will make the yet to be named union the biggest private sector union in Canada with over 300 000 members in 20 sectors.  That would be big enough union news to merit a blog entry but wait there’s more: the new union is going to aggressively organize, not just employed workers but the unemployed, the retired and other members of the working class. 

Back in the day the union hall was the social epicentre of many industrial towns but as manufacturing waned and consumer culture waxed all measure of material things replaced the camaraderie that once emanated from the union hall.  Many CAW locals have worked their asses off to get involved with their communities to be seen as a social force for good and reclaim their position at the heart of the communities they represent.  The organizing model of traditional unions in Ontario however did not allow them to admit like minded workers who could not obtain 50% + 1 at their workplaces nor did it allow them to admit the ever growing numbers of unemployed workers but this merger could turn that on its head.  Shortly after the CAW vote CAW President Ken Lewenza  said “This new union has the potential to change the way workers are represented in this country, bringing about stronger democracy in the workplace and greater community involvement,” In my opinion this new union has the potential to break the mould and change the way workers are organized.

For more information on how the CAW broke off from the UAW watch Final offer at http://www.nfb.ca/film/final_offer it is a great film.  If you just can’t get enough of those down home CAW movies track down a copy of the negotiator; it documents tense contract negotiations in the aerospace industry.  Still want more? You can watch the recap (or live stream for the next little bit) of the CAW convention at http://www.caw2012.ca

It’s a good day for the Labour Movement

Sol.

Labourguydave

That'll teach you to collectively bargain

For a long time the collective bargaining regime has been based on the assumption that a union and employer are two equals meeting in the marketplace each able to pursue their own ends. Dad Dalton has blown this assumption out of the water with his and his governments conduct over the last couple of weeks. The provinces teachers, bargaining on behalf of their members have been bombarded with threats of legislated wage freezes and back to work legislation since the beginning of summer. The government seems like they want to play hard ball with their employees, except one thing: Teachers do not work for the provincial government. Teachers work for the various school boards throughout Ontario.

So the government is surely stepping in to the fray to help the school boards? No. In fact the presidents of 3 employer organizations representing trustees, supervisors and principals wrote jointly to the Toronto Star:
“We collectively call upon the government to cease negotiating unilaterally with our employee groups; to provide boards and unions the chance to discuss their respective concerns freely and outside of the memorandum of understanding’s parameters; and to discontinue the public threats aimed at all partners in education that serve no purpose whatsoever”
Dalton’s crap goes beyond bad faith bargaining with teachers, this is bad faith treatment of other elected officials. And the officials that are being mistreated are the officials we elected to take care of school finances, the school trustees. Other than being not helpful in attempting to broker a solution Dalton is putting up obstacles and deadlines to complicate talks.

I guess I just don’t understand. It didn’t seem very likely the teachers would strike at the beginning of the school year without a strike vote (cause…. you know… that is.. um.. illegal) and Dalton decided to try and provoke them while disrespecting the authority of school trustees. Now it seems like the teachers have a gun to their head and they will either concede to government demands or be forced to strike illegally.

So much for two parties in a marketplace; the talks between the teachers and the boards are being hampered by government action and now both parties are powerless to act legally in their own interests. Sure the government gets a sound bite and some news that doesn’t mention Ornge but at the end of the day it would be better to continue negotiating with the teachers or at least let the boards continue negotiating. Nice thing about minority governments – we have a chance to change our minds.

We need to cut back austerity

After a few hours at OPSEU's youth day event the topic of austerity came up. Austerity, says Harper and his neocons, is the solution to our debt crisis. They liken it to our household budget: "if you don't have enough money to pay your bills then you cut back". This is shit logic. While it may be true that I do cut my expenses if I don't have enough money, I am not, despite any plan to the contrary, a country.

Applying household spending rules to government spending makes as much sense as applying household leadership rules to Canada. (David Johnston and Steven Harper are the Mom and Dad & business is the favorite child). Why stop there? If financial rules can be borrowed with success, no staying out past 11 on a school night? Prison? No but you'll loose your phone privileges or for the most heinous offenses perhaps a time out. Harper is not working with a family budget he is dealing with a government policy. The budget is not just numbers. (most government budgets relate to numbers but with our trend toward omnibus bills it seems not so much anymore)

Government spending has important benefits when done properly. It can stimulate business growth and employment. It can be used to support demand when consumer confidence fluctuates and it can be withdrawn when markets overheat. It is an important part of monetary policy.

As an idea cutting government services when times are tough does two things:
1) reduces services at in need populations when the in need population is growing
2) displaces workers providing those services. Increasing the number of people the fraying social safety net needs to catch.

Sure some things could be cut: Tax breaks for oil companies (what are they going to do, move? Fine, we keep the tar sands) The senate (ever seen a senator do anything?). But by and large spending on the social safety net is a good idea.

Why? Because nothing stimulates consumer spending like giving money to low earners. They spend 100% of what they have to get by and almost immediately return what they have to the economy. If you give money to the top earners and hope it will trickle down you ignore the realities of executive bonuses , stock dividends an capital flight. not to mention the fact that higher corporate profits are not tied to new jobs or raises to current employees. Austerity as a solution to a jobs crisis is an attempt to dig oneself out of a hole.

Sol.
Labourguydave

My first post

Hi, welcome to my thus far neglected blog. I'm pretty busy, so I dont know how this will go, but here goes the old college try.

First this blog is mine. My views are mine. They do not represent the views of OPSEU, ONDP, Scouts Canada, My employer or anyone else. Mine.

With that out of the way, I was thinking of a way to explain conciliation in a YouTube video and I had a breakthrough today and will be making the video next week.

In the mean time, a union and employer that refer a matter to conciliation are essentially declaring that talks have stalled and are requesting the minister of labour send a representative to conciliate. (you'll note I just used the word in the definition but keep reading)

During negotiations the parties(union and employer) sit together and make proposals and counter proposals. Emotions can become heated and people on both sides can become entrenched. When the talks turn to conciliation, the parties are separate and the conciliator takes offers from each side and acts as a go-between.

The conciliator does not propose new ideas and (supposedly) only passes along offers made by the opposing side.

If it becomes clear to the conciliator that an agreement cannot be reached between the parties then the conciliator will go back to the minister of labour and recommend a no board report be issued.

17 days after the minister issues that report the parties are in a legal strike/lockout position.

In my local our Essential Service Agreement dictates that 100% of members are essential and after a no board report the parties would refer the matter to an arbitrator.

It is possible for the parties to agree to a mediator. A mediator is like a conciliator with one major difference: they propose compromises. Mediators come up with new solutions not offered by the union or the employer; they listen to interests and attempt to solve both parties issues. There are other differences(they don't need to be appointed by the minister, they do not issue reports to the minister) but overall they are similar roles. Trying to get the sides to agree.

Arbitration is quasi judicial. The sides can continue to disagree and present their cases and an arbitrator who makes decisions.

It should be noted that at any point during conciliation, mediation or arbitration the union and employer can elect to continue normal negotiations.

I hope this helps clarify conciliation. If you like it retweet it or comment and I'll try and keep the blog going.

Props to google for the mobile app!

Sol.
Labourguydave