5 Most Damaging BC NDP Campaign Promises

[Rwede]

5 Most Damaging BC NDP Campaign Promises

From the NDP’s own platform document here are five commitments that show the degree to which organized labour has taken over the B.C. New Democrats.
1.“Invest new resources to make the BC Labour Relations Board more efficient and effective in helping employers and unions to solve disputes.”
2.“Form a special panel, under the Labour Code, to recommend changes to ensure workers can freely exercise their right to join a union. Within 90 days, the panel will consult interested parties and recommend possible changes regarding certification options, including the card check model, and ways to help employers and unions arrive at first contract settlements through mediation.”
3.“Invest new resources to proactively enforce basic workplace standards.”
4.“Establish a more effective governance system for the Workers’ Compensation Board to give employers and unions a greater role in decision making.”
5.“Re-balance the skills training system so all stakeholders are at the table.”

For those who think weak leadership is not an issue, these promises should be a concern.

For months, NDP leader Adrian Dix tried to keep his agenda a secret by resisting pressure to release an election platform.

With a political calculus saying he could kick a dog and still win the May 14 election, why bother coming out with something that is going to pin down your future actions?

But Dix finally did issue an election platform document after days of intense pressure by the governing BC Liberals.

It was his biggest tactical mistake of the campaign. A victory for transparency, but a mistake for Dix because it laid bare the degree to which he has been unable to say No to the union bosses who created Dix as NDP leader. We now can see how Dix’s weak leadership in failing to hold the line on what he claimed was a “business-friendly” makeover of the NDP will quickly be felt by citizens and businesses should the NDP win the provincial election on May 14.

[Snman]

Well put.

[Al Czervic]

NDP’s definition of being “business friendly” basically amounts to “we will only slowly tax you out of existence”

[hobbyguy]

Can't figure out the irrational fear of union presence, and a voice for workers. If you are worth your salt as a manager, unions are not a problem.

It makes sense to have LRB be more efficient.

It makes sense for workers to have the freedom to join unions if they wish. (Good managers needn't worry about that either)

The enforcement of workplace standards is not just a benefit to workers, it is a benefit to honest business people and entrepreneurs who do play by the rules - they won't have sleezeballs undercutting them by not following Worksafe rules etc.

Making the Worksafe/WCB system less bureaucratic and more responsive to the needs of both workers and employers makes sense.

Making sure that skills training programs are aimed at the right things requires that all stakeholders have a voice. That's businesses, workers etc. What's the problem with that???

I can not see why any responsible business would have any issue with these proposals.

[BCfromBC]

I should also have the right not to join a union.

[LoneWolf_53]

^^ Exactly, yet when one wishes to work for an entity that is unionized you do not have that right. The public school system is a fantastic example of that.

Given that it's precisely that, public, anyone who qualifies should have the opportunity, and right, to teach in our public schools, without being extorted and intimidated by the BCTF.

[Nom_de_Plume]

Can't figure out the irrational fear of union presence, and a voice for workers. If you are worth your salt as a manager, unions are not a problem.

Ok fear of a union starting in your business has nothing to do with whether you're a good manager or not. There is an assumption that a "union" job comes with perks that many employers cannot afford. So that's where the fear stems from. It could break a small business to have to pay union style perks to employees in some cases.

[logicalview]

Ok fear of a union starting in your business has nothing to do with whether you're a good manager or not. There is an assumption that a "union" job comes with perks that many employers cannot afford. So that's where the fear stems from. It could break a small business to have to pay union style perks to employees in some cases.[/quote]

Great post. It's amazing how many people say "it's not that big a deal" to higher taxes, massive deficits, unions being given tons of undeserved power to wreak havoc, all because they've never run a business or done anything with their lives other than be union bagmen or loser "activists". Unfortunately, these are the people that also run for the NDP, and then end up running an NDP government, and also then end up running BC straight into the ground.

[hobbyguy]

Ok, so now I understand it partially - the fear of the big bad union making a business unviable. I would suggest that that fear is unfounded.

I have been in the situation where a group of employees (office staff) decided to unionize and well, they figured that they would get huge wage increases, more holidays, big pensions et al. All the things that would destroy a business plan. Chose to "go with the flow" and do the work required to manage the situation. Net result, after an LRB hearing (won the case) and negotiations was that the group of employees got unionized, except for those excluded via the LRB hearing, and wound up with a lower value package for themselves. It did result in some employee turnover, as several employees left because they saw that they were now boxed into a situation where future wage increase/benefit increases would be minimal - COLA type - and they had lost the flexibilty of being salaried. Wages did NOT go up, and in fact benefits dropped (especially sick pay/days) as the unionized plan was not as good as the salary plan in a couple of ways. Yup, it was a royal pain in the.., but in no way effected the business plan in the long term. The short term costs (legal, travel etc.) were more than offset by future savings. My experience was that the union was quite cognizant of the competetive wage levels for the variety of jobs, and quite willing to present that position to the employees - so in essence, as the employer was paying industry competetive wages there was no change for the employer, and working condition issues did not change as the employer already offered appropriate conditions.

Nothing to fear there, unless the employer is not paying competetive level wages or not offering reasonable working conditions.

As far as not wanting to be a union member - don't apply for a unionized job if you don't want to be unionized. The unionization is often a reflection of employees getting so frustrated with past management abuses that they were willing to give up some pay (in the form of dues) to have someone represent them. As a non-union oriented person, you would likely be disappointed with that employer if the union were not there to level the field.

Bear in mind also that the wages/benefits and working conditions at that employer are a result of the efforts of the union on behalf of the employees. Those efforts were/are paid for by the employees who decided that on balance the dues and trade-offs were a good balance. Those employees may have given up several months of wages in the effort to make their working conditions/wages/benefits more attractive. It is likely those costs and investments by the union members that make the employer attractive to a prospective employee in the first place - so to come in later and expect to receive those benefits without paying dues/belonging to the union is, well, could be considered, free-riding.

It is also important to note that unionized operations effect the competetive level for non-union employees. Pretty hard to retain a good qualified employee at significantly lower than union wages if there are positions available at the union operation. (That can actually be a benefit to unionized employers, as when there is an opening, good candidates often "come out of the woodwork".)

And as I have stated before, lower and middle management/supervison owes a chunk of their salary level to union employees. Pretty hard to ask a supervisor to make less than the unionized employees supervised, and that spills upward. A supervisor making $20/hr might be feasible if the employees generally make $15/hr (or less), but not if the employees make $25/hr.

So really, all of that discussion relates to point two of the OP only.

The other 4 items are still standing as less controversial and positive moves, not as "damaging".

[Rwede]

It's positive to have bullying and intimidation from union thugs when certification is being yea'd or nay'd?

[Nom_de_Plume]

Have you ever had one of your union working friends say "oh I have this week off, I have to use up my sick days"
This is the kinda mentality I don't want in my business and why it will never have union employees.

[Veovis]

Being a good manager or boss does not remotely mean that a union won't happen. Not in the slightest. I've seen a company with an amazing owner, but the union wanted the money, so they pressed and pressured the employees (in some cases to the point of harassment) without any repercussions.

IN the end, yup, union got in. You know what the employees got?

2% wage cut in the form of union dues.

You know what else is a solid theme?

The employees that ask for the most loans, advances, and other general favors, are the same ones that are "super pro union". They are also the ones that talk the most trash about their amazing boss who bends over backwards for them.

No the fear is not unfounded. Not even a little.

[logicalview]

It's positive to have bullying and intimidation from union thugs when certification is being yea'd or nay'd?

Speaking of bullying and intimidation, the amount of bullying going on right now by government unions like the BCTF and BCGEU towards their membership to vote NDP is unprecedented. The BCGEU printed that disgusting magazine in April where the president blatantly said that he was voting NDP, and now they have done a mail-out to all BCGEU members telling them how to vote. All paid for with member dues. The NDP don't deserve to be the government for many reasons, number one being their sniveling lying coward of a leader, but the unions hijacking member dues without their permission to pay for NDP propaganda and bullying and intimidation on how to vote goes against all principles and fundamentals of democracy. The NDP should be disbanded immediately to put an end to this thuggish Marxist brutality.

[hobbyguy]

Union thugs?

What Union thugs?

Maybe, maybe, a long time ago - but I believe that started as a response to employers hiring gangs of thugs - such as Ford did in the 1930's. Violence begets violence.

Things have moved on since then. Employers no longer hire gangs of thugs to beat up union members/organizers - they use lawyers and influence instead. Unions now generally respond in kind with legal arguments and court actions. The closest you might find to "union thugs" is peer pressure, and occasionally a bully amongst the peer group - but those bullies even out pro and anti union.

Before a long career in management, I was a member of two different unions, Teamsters and IWA, and the only intimidation efforts I ever saw were from individuals with no union status other than membership who didn't like how hard I worked. They were garden variety lazy bullies and I just told them to p off - which they did. That was, by the way, an instructive experience that stood me well in management. I learned to recognize the type, and by keeping tabs properly was able to weed them out of crews I ran, both union and non-union - yup, they're there in non-union crews too.

Anyway, I think you'll find that the myth of "unions thugs" is largely just that - a myth.

[hobbyguy]

The sick day thing is because of poorly negotiated provisions in the contract. I have had union crews where I had the opportunity to renegotiated proper illness coverage provisions and the result, combined with other efforts, was that 80%+ had perfect (not one day missed) attendance.

Sick day abuse is a management problem. I've seen contracts where the provisions sloppily incentive absentism.

If you were in a situation where you would lose 1-2 weeks if you DIDN'T take time off, what you do? What would the majority of folks do? That's literally the stupidity of some of these contracts - and most of it is the sloppy wording of the clauses that management accepted without seeing the ramifications.