Why we still need unions

[Smurf]

There again the unions that I was in paid people on probation according to the union contract rates for new employees. They were protected by the union the same as anyone else except for the fact that they could be released at anytime according to the probation rules. They basically had everything but the benefits package.

I have never been in a union that took advantage of me or anyone else. If I had been I would have been doing something about it. I have many times seen people complain about the union not doing enough for them but I don't think I have ever seen a case where their complaints weren't unreasonable. I have fought unreasonable complaints because it is required by law but I never enjoyed doing it. I have convinced more than one person to drop unreasonable complaints. Complaints about sick time abuse were very common and I always told people that sick time was to cover actual sickness not just extra holidays. I always made it very plain that the union negotiated sick time in "good faith" to cover people that were actually sick. However that kind of an attitude made a lot of people mad at me, "company man".

[hobbyguy]

I see the misconception stated again that employment laws/labor laws protect workers.

The only part of employment law that REALLY protects workers is the safety aspect, "Worksafe" in BC. All the rest is very, very minimal - and if you are not in a union, and you have a problem, you will rapidly find that you are up against the legal system, and employers have a LOT more time and resources to devote to that.

Think about this: almost all of us will have seen a Worksafe inspector at our place of work. How many of us have ever seen a representative from the Employment Standards Branch????

I would venture to guess that 95% of working folks have had reasonable access to Worksafe, and a very large number have had basic training/information explained to them about Worksafe.

I would venture to guess that in terms of the Employment Standards Branch, the number would be more like .001%.

The fundamental reason for this being that Worksafe is in the interest of employers. It protects them from lawsuits - which is part of the reason for the existence of Worksafe. The regulations from Worksafe are extensive, and set standards for virtually all workplaces, and standards that by and large work very well. Both "free enterprise" and NDP governments have supported and expanded Worksafe.

The Employment Standards Act is another kettle of fish. Employers like it to be "loosey-goosey" and have little impact or real teeth. Big Labor doesn't give a rats, because unions are covered separately. So neither "free enterprise" nor the NDP have ever really done any more with the ESA than not repeal it.

That creates the situation where real employee protection from abuse is really only available in a union.

[The Green Barbarian]

I would venture to guess that in terms of the Employment Standards Branch, the number would be more like .001%.

The fundamental reason for this being that Worksafe is in the interest of employers. It protects them from lawsuits - which is part of the reason for the existence of Worksafe. The regulations from Worksafe are extensive, and set standards for virtually all workplaces, and standards that by and large work very well. Both "free enterprise" and NDP governments have supported and expanded Worksafe.

The Employment Standards Act is another kettle of fish. Employers like it to be "loosey-goosey" and have little impact or real teeth. Big Labor doesn't give a rats, because unions are covered separately. So neither "free enterprise" nor the NDP have ever really done any more with the ESA than not repeal it.

That creates the situation where real employee protection from abuse is really only available in a union.

HG - I am sure that if I forwarded this post on to people I know at ESB, they'd have a pretty big bone to pick with you.

[LoneWolf_53]

Complaints about sick time abuse were very common and I always told people that sick time was to cover actual sickness not just extra holidays. I always made it very plain that the union negotiated sick time in "good faith" to cover people that were actually sick. However that kind of an attitude made a lot of people mad at me, "company man".

That's exactly what many unionized government workers use it for, and but one more reason I dislike unions.

Sick time should be for actual sickness, yet there are countless examples of where it is used as extra holiday time, or when banked to retirement, basically an extra bonus, over and above already generous wages.

[LoneWolf_53]

HG - I am sure that if I forwarded this post on to people I know at ESB, they'd have a pretty big bone to pick with you.

No doubt.

I've used employment standards to correct an employer who thought he could get away without paying overtime.

He had to pay, because he failed to do the required employee notification, that would have allowed him to use a loophole in BC labor rules, in place to cater to seasonal employers. The employers have to be up front about their intentions though, if they plan to defer OT monies.

Many who come from other provinces, and assume BC labor regulations are the same, can get a rather unwelcome surprise on their paycheck, if they worked a lot of overtime and weren't told of certain exemptions.

The onus is on employees to seek guidance from ESB if they feel they have a legitimate problem.

Work Safe on the other hand is little more than a glorified insurance company, that rakes in millions from employers, and as is the case with all insurance companies, resorts to whatever measures necessary to avoid paying out a claim.

[Veovis]

The union agreements also account for people working overtime and only getting straight time, mainly due to the clause that they never informed their employer they were approaching OT, and the fact that when they do that they are stealing from their "brothers and sisters" who have the senior right to shifts once they hit the # before OT kicks in, until such a time no others can take the shift or all have hit the cap and seniority kicks in again.

[maryjane48]

thats not true because skill can trump length of service . if there was welding overtime to be done do you pick the welder with more skill but less time or the person with more time and less skill ?

[Veovis]

thats not true because skill can trump length of service . if there was welding overtime to be done do you pick the welder with more skill but less time or the person with more time and less skill ?

Nope. In fact if it is about skill I suppose when applying for a position it would be skill based....yet on the tests and interviews seniority gives you a % boost based on how much more than the other guy you have......but it's about skill and merit? Nope it isn't.

Never mind promotions had nothing to do with the call in policies stated, that unions have put into place affecting the rules of OT that are the same as non union places yet claimed as a "LOOK WHAT WE DUN FER YA'LL", and if ya can't deal with that reality, talk about something else....wait, you did.

[LoneWolf_53]

thats not true because skill can trump length of service . if there was welding overtime to be done do you pick the welder with more skill but less time or the person with more time and less skill ?

Skill comes in way behind seniority in the union world. You can be the best welder on the planet, but if the worst one has more seniority than you, guess who gets cut first when there's a layoff? Union is all about seniority and nepotism.

[driveangry]

I believe if the mine in Princeton had gone union a little while ago, the mine would have shut down when copper prices dropped. Instead they worked with the employees and kept going.

[hobbyguy]

There is no question that the ESB is functional at the minimal level, such as not getting paid, not being granted vacations, overtime pay etc.

But, if you get to the more serious stuff, there is very little. The most serious, and often life altering for people, situation is termination. There is very, very little within the ESB that covers this at an adequate level. As I said earlier, work for a company for 25-30 years, they get bought out, and your job is given to "one of theirs", or a new manager gets hired and does the same kind of thing (and yes, I have seen it done, where a new manager "disappears" the job of a long term employee, and low and behold as soon as "the coast is clear" - a friend of theirs is hired to do the same job).

In those situations, the ESB provides no real protection. Yes, they will do their job, but the ESA is so minimal in that regard that the ESB doing its job is almost meaningless. http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_96113_01#section63[url][/url] ... that is all the ESB can achieve.

[hobbyguy]

This overview gives an idea of what an ESA would look like that could obviate the need for unions: https://www.wilmerhale.com/pages/publicationsandNewsDetail.aspx?NewsPubId=90463

By the way, in Germany, my example of a 20+ year employee getting let go through no fault of their own? 12 months pay. 18 months if 55 yrs old or older.

Our BC ESA? 8 weeks max....