10 MYTHS ABOUT UNIONS


1. WHY ARE PEOPLE FORCED TO JOIN UNIONS AND PAY DUES?

A union is created in a workplace when a majority of workers in a particular workplace sign membership cards, usually in secret to join the union. This action leads to a secret government supervised vote to determine whether the majority of people w ant the union to represent them or not. It takes a lot of courage for workers to organize a union. The employer uses all kinds of tactics and strategies to try and persuade their workers not to join.
 

The employer usually resorts to fear and intimidation tactics to keep the union out and in manyinstances workers get fired. Despite this employer opposition, unions exist because the majority ofworkers believe very strongly that the introduction of a union at their workplace will help to better their lives through better working conditions, wages and benefits. People who oppose unions are not forced to join the union or sign membership cards. They are required, however, to pay dues.
 

There are several reasons for this. First, if every worker in a workplace benefits from a union contract, everyone should pay dues. If a union wins a wage increase, it goes to every worker, not only to those that pay dues. If the union negotiates other benefits such as vacation, entitled leave or job security, the same holds true. Second, union members pay dues to finance the operation of their union. If the union costs nothing, it probably wouldn't be worth anything. Union dues pay for a variety of services, including operating a local union, costs associated with bargaining, hiring staff,
legal services, sending delegates to conventions, strike funds, insurance, education and per capita portions to central bodies such as the Canadian labour Congress. Another large portion of most unions' dues is spent on "organizing the unorganized".
  

About one-third of all Canadian workers are represented by unions. There are literally millions of people without protection and employers are able to use these workers to undercut hard-won and decent union contracts by operating non-union workplaces and cheaper competition to already unionized establishments. How much unions get in wages and benefits depends on how strongly they
have organized the industry o r service. Another reason that people should pay dues is that in democratic countries, where democratic principles apply, the will of the majority usually determines the outcome. Unions, being democratic institutions where members participate and have a vote, recognize that if the majority of people want a union in their workplace, that majority should be represented by union. When this happens the law says that unions must represent all people in the workplace, even those that voted against the union.

There are a lot of phony arguments about forcing workers to pay dues if they were opposed to the union. If you examine these arguments, they disappear. People pay municipal, provincial and federal taxes whether or not they voted for the person or political party in office. You get your street cleaned, the protection of fire and police department, the protection of federal laws and agencies because you pay for them. You simply cannot opt-out. It's the same in the workplace. Every worker is protected by the union. Every worker gets the benefits of a union contract. Every worker should belong. Anti-union free riders are undemocratic. If a union negotiated a wage increase and benefits, would these same anti-union people refuse to take their raises?
 

2. WHY ARE UNIONS ALWAYS MAKING UNREASONABLE DEMANDS ?

What is a reasonable wage demand? One that meets the workers' needs? One based on the employer's ability to pay? One that's tied to productivity? Or one that the media thinks is responsible? The fact is that nobody has yet devised a workable formula for determining wage increases that would be considered reasonable by the workers, by their employer, by the public, by the press and by the government. One group or another will always be unhappy. Besides, most employers — except occasionally when in genuine financial stress — still refuse to open their books
to union negotiators.
 

Unions are thus denied access to the data on profits, productivity and labour costs that they must have in order to formulate "reasonable" demands. The only alternative in our private enterprise society is to go for as much as they think their members are entitled to. To some segments of our society, anything they try to negotiate is too much.

3.WHY ARE UNIONS ONLY INTERESTED IN MONEY ?

Who isn't? Only people with enough money not to worry about lay-offs, job security or on the job injuries don't have these worries. But unions have always been concerned about more than wages. Some of the first goals of organized labour were better working conditions: eliminating the child sweat shops, expanding public education and reducing the number of working hours. Over the years,
labour has led the fight for medicare, for workers' compensation, for occupational health laws, tougher human rights codes and equal pay for work of equal value.
 

Unions have also spearheaded all serious attempts to make jobs less boring and less dangerous. Unions know that productivity increases when work has more meaning and that absenteeism falls and the economy and community are improved. Unions must always be responsive to their memberships' needs and desires. Times have changed and the world has become much more competitive. Today union memberships are primarily concerned with issues such as job security, health and safety, retraining and education. It should come as no surprise that union demands reflect these concerns. 

4.WHY ARE UNIONS STRIKE HAPPY ?

Unions negotiate for agreements, not strikes. No union wants a strike. Strikes develop when both sides can in no other way reach an agreement. To union members, a strike means sacrifice to themselves and their families. Workers won't go on strike unless the issues involved are so great they
are worth the sacrifice. Unions always conduct membership votes before taking strike action and a strike occurs only when it has been approved by a clear majority.
 

It is inconceivable that workers would walk a picket line in all kinds of weather, sometimes having confrontations with police and strikebreakers, existing on strike pay that is only a fraction of their normal income if a majority of them were opposed to the strike. It simply couldn't happen. Most union leaders measure their success by the extent to which they can avoid strikes, and they do manage to settle 97 out of 100 contract negotiations without a strike. But a .970 batting average evidently doesn't satisfy some of the public and the press. Strikes are controversial and controversy
makes news. This, no doubt, is why many people think strikes are the rule rather than the exception.
 

Management can trigger a strike simply by refusing to bargain. But the union has to take the first overt action and the strike is the first visible sign of dispute. This probably accounts for the public blaming unions for strikes in many cases. But the right to strike, or the right to withhold one's labour in unison and agreement with fellow workers, is crucial to maintaining democracy. In totalitarian countries, the right to strike is prohibited along with all other freedoms. The right to strike is a matter
of freedom, and a democracy cannot function without freedom.

5. AREN'T UNIONS TOO BIG AND POWERFUL ?

Comparing "BIG UNIONS" to "BIG CORPORATIONS" and "BIG GOVERNMENT" is a favorite trick of the media and other groups like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. "Big" and powerful" are relative terms. In actual fact, most Canadian unions are quite small, and together they represent less than 40% of the country's workforce. Even the largest unions, in terms of size and resources, pale by comparison with multinational corporations such as INCO, EXON, Canadian Pacific or General Motors.

In Canada, few politicians ever dare interfere with "free enterprise". Business can set their prices, sell their products and throw their money into anything from advertising to a new executive wash room without supervision or restraint. Governments will usually give them money or tax breaks to do this.
 

Politicians feel differently about unions. They have required legal certification, formal backing from a majority of the workers they wish to represent and a long, complicated legal process before they can call a strike. Governments can intervene in strikes, force workers back to the job and impose a settlement. They can fine or jail workers who refuse to work. Do you ever see governments try those tactics on companies?
 

Unions are made up of all kinds of people. They're human. They negotiate for what they can get. After all, they get plenty of examples from the business world. We all have ringside seats to watch by oil companies, supermarket chains and banks. If unions were even one-tenth as powerful as they are thought to be, they would be able to organize the six million Canadian workers still outside unions. They would be winning more of their strikes and increasing their members' wage
rates a lot more than they actually are.

6. UNIONS WERE GOOD AT ONE TIME BUT HAVEN'T THEY
OUTLIVED THEIR USEFULNESS?

The Toronto Globe and Mail made this argument on May 6, 1886. Over 100 years have passed and unions continue to grow and become a more acceptable part of Canadian life. The simple truth is
that unions will never be out of date so long as some people control the lives of others by determining how much they earn or work or what kind of job they are entitled to. Since the time of the Globe and Mail editorial, thanks almost wholly to unions, Canadian workers have made impressive progress.
 

Historians admit that union bargaining power, not government or corporate charity, has helped move millions of Canadians out of poverty. Unions have also given workers the purchasing power that has kept our economy functioning. Some of our strongest unions are in industries like steel, mining and pulp and paper where Canadian workers have also achieved a productivity second t o none in the
world. Without unions, in 1886 or now, how many Canadian workers would have ever been granted a decent wage or the leisure to enjoy it? You can't have prosperity or social justice when two-thirds of the people are broke. Thanks to the wage levels established by the labour movement, even unorganized and anti-union workers have benefitted.
 

Today it is more important than ever to recognize that without a collective agreement outlining the conditions of work, wages and benefits, the employer has the right to treat its workers in any way it wants. Workers would have no protection from management that could alter any work process or pick favorites and play off worker against worker Without a union acting as a form of insurance and
security, workers are like sitting ducks in a shooting gallery.

7. THE PUBLIC IS NOT REPRESENTED AND IS THE INNOCENT
VICTIM OF STRIKES BY WORKERS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR?

Unions in the public sector have to bargain directly with government officials or their agents. Who are these officials representing if not the public? The mandatory conciliation process, along with the other legal rituals that must be followed before a legal strike can begin, are all imposed by government in the name of the public. Unions simply follow these rules. Public employees are exactly what their label implies. They are the public's employees. They are our employees and when they go
on strike they do so for the same reason employees in the private sector go on strike because they are dissatisfied with the way we, through our elected representatives, are treating them.
 

If the service provided by postal workers, by garbage collectors, by hospital workers, by workers intransportation and other key industries are truly essential, why are such workers so often among the lowest paid? If their jobs are so indispensable, why are they not treated accordingly? The public, as an employer, really has no more right to claim immunity from strikes than any other employer who doesn't make an honest effort to treat his workers fairly. When governments refuse to bargain in
good faith, unions representing public employees have no alternative than to exercise their right to strike, when their members vote for this action.

People who may be hurt by such strikes should make an effort to look at both sides of the dispute to determine if their employees' demands are justified. If this is clearly the case, then public pressure should be directed at governments to offer a fair settlement, rather than force unions out on strike because it might be politically convenient; or once a strike is enacted, impose back to- work legislation or strike-breaking laws.

8. DON'T UNIONS PROTECT THE LAZY... THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE FIRED ?

No union contact requires an employer to keep a worker who is lazy, incompetent or constantly absent or tardy. What the union does is make sure dismissals are for ‘just cause', for real reasons not personality clashes between supervisors and employees.
 

Research into decisions by neutral arbitrators who have reinstated workers deemed wrongly fired, shows that most of those workers were still on the job a year later. They got a second chance to keep their jobs, thanks to their union. That's what a union contract is, job insurance for good employees. If you can't do the job, you can't keep it. Yes, some older employees can't be fired as they once were when they're considered not as useful to their employer. Women who have a union can't suffer discrimination from their boss because the boss fears they may get pregnant, for example. In that way , unions do protect people's jobs. That's the purpose of a union.
 

Some management people understand this and support it. Robert S. Hatfield, chairman of the Continental Group, one of the world's biggest firms says, "When I first started working in a factory in 1936... . The whim of the boss could make the difference, and sometimes that meant swallowing a lot of abuse, with no way to talk back. It came home to me then, as never before, that human dignity is very precious. Now when I think of the humanity and dignity that underpins the relationships today
of all working people. I know that our unions have a lot to be proud of, because it was the union movement that spearheaded the effort and made it happen.
 

9. UNIONS ONLY CARE ABOUT THEMSELVES. RIGHT ?

If you look back at Canada's history you'll observe that many of the rights and benefits we all enjoy were initially fought for and won by unions. The labour movement was in the forefront of the struggles for public health care, for public education, for minimum wages and employment conditions. We work 40 hours a week or less instead of 60 or more because the unions periodically went on strike for a shorter work week, despite the warnings of employers that they'd never be able
to afford it. Many of us will receive pensions from our employers when we retire because unions went on strike for that benefit too. And pay equity provisions have recently been added to many workers' benefits, largely because their unions fought for it. No matter where you look, unions are involved in things that make the community better.
 

Unions have always lobbied to pass on to others the benefits unions won in bargaining: medicare, prepaid dental insurance, income wh en you're off sick and pensions. In cities around Canada you'll find union-built, non-profit housing. You'll find unions working with the United Way, providing scholarships for young people to go to university, providing unemployment counseling and promoting
sports for youngsters. Unions inspired the civil rights movement in Canada and helped found, and still support, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council of Retirees, the co-operative movement in Canada, many credit unions, the Canadian Health Coalition and numerous environmental and peace groups. Far from caring only, about themselves , unions represent the public interest.

10. WHY DO THESE FAIRYTALES AND FABLES ABOUT UNIONS
EXIST?

Time and time again labour is presented by newspapers, radio and television as the most unreliable and disruptive part of our national economy. The unions, and the circumstances involved, may be different at various times, but the media message is almost always the same, trade unions are an unpredictable and destabilizing element in the otherwise smoothly-operating machinery of the country. This type of journalistic presentation neatly splits the individual's role as a worker from his role as a consumer and a member of the public. News media seem to be more concerned with our
temporary inconveniences as consumers due to strikes than with the ongoing struggle to improve pay, job security and working conditions.
 

If one were to believe the media it would appear that unions are ready to go on strike at the drop of a picket sign. But the hard facts tell another story. 97 out of every 100 collective agreements are negotiated by unions without a strike. This side of the picture is not "sexy" enough for the newspapers. Unions seem to make news only when they are involved in some kind of confrontation. Unionists in violent situations, like the Gainers strike in Edmonton and the nation-wide postal dispute, are guaranteed to make front-page headlines and the nightly television news. Not all media reporting of the labour movement is negative; but whatever journalists have to say about the achievements of trade unions seems to get drowned out in the continual clamor of unfavorable coverage. The major electronic and print media in the country are owned by the government or private business — the very entities which hold an unfavorable view and adversarial position toward the labour movement.
 

In addition, the content of news coverage cannot be taken in isolation from the entertainment and commercial output of the media. Images of workers presented in the news are supported by their depictions in sitcoms, dramas, movies, soap operas and even advertisements. Unions are rarely allowed to intrude into the unreal worlds of the small and big screen. Businessmen like the Ewings and the Carringtons generally dominate the cast of characters with only bit parts left for working
class roles. Workers in TV and movies usually have simplistic minds and lack real substance in their characters. They are almost always unorganized and presented as individuals rather than as having group interests — their concerns are generally trivial and remain secondary to those of their employers.

Should we be surprised that most Canadians are labour illiterates? Perhaps unions have "image" problems because they are exploding myths. They make people face unpleasant realities. There really is unfairness in the workplace. Many people don't earn enough money to live on. Many people must work on jobs which are beneath their dignity or make them unhappy. Yet the reality is that when people feel a sense of powerlessness or helplessness on their jobs or in their workplaces, most turn to unions to help resolve their problems. Sadly, it is only when this happens that workers begin to believe that the fairytales and fables they once believed about unions are exactly that.

Main Page

  counter.bloke.com