Go to article index for other editions of Bob Orrick's IN RE (In the Matter of).
Common Sense Over Stunted Thinking
By
Bob Orrick
04 September 2003
For years, the battle lines have been drawn between employer and employees. Neither, it seems, has much interest in accepting the other's arguments/positions. On the one side, employers claim that unionised employees demand too much for too little in return; unions scream that the employers are exploiting workers with low wages, less-than-ideal working conditions and foisting 'scab' labour into the workplace. Which is correct? Is either correct? Or, does the truth lie somewhere between the poles?
With Labour Day [the first in 1882 in New York City] nicely put away for another year, perhaps now that the hype - both labour and management - is out of the way, a word or two about unions versus management might be in order.
There is no question that workers have benefited greatly by their unions; gone are the days when an unscrupulous employer demanded more and more from employees worn down to a frazzle by 16-hour days working in unsafe conditions for a pittance. The coal mines of England come to mind as an example of how exploited workers were by coal barons more intent on becoming rich than caring for the welfare of the very workers who were making them rich. So what if a worker or two or three or more died while down in the pits? There were many more where they came from. Entire families were tied to the mines from dawn to away past dusk, from father to son, through generations. The graveyards were filled with those whose toil turned to death.
From those first, hesitant steps unions blossomed and grew in number and in strength. More and more employers were called to the bar and told to smarten up. In time, legislation was passed that cleaned up the workplace and provided employer-paid-for benefits to workers. Some employers then and some now forget that the connection between an employee and employer is fundamentally an agreement that one sells his skill while the other pays for it. Without both, there can be no agreement.
In time, as the union idea spread and as governments took notice, more and more government employees clambered for a public union. Up to that time, unions were in the private sector. That changed, some say for the better while others counter and say that public unions have been the catalyst that have caused Canada to become a basket case; take your pick. I suppose it all depends on whose ox is being gored. Today, in Canada, firemen, policemen, mailmen, nurses, ambulance attendants, teachers, and a host of others belong to a public union. There is an argument, however, that public sector union members ought not be given the right to strike, especially in essential services.
Over in the private sector, unions have been having a spot of trouble as more and more businesses downsize or go belly up due to poor economic times. In British Columbia, the economic engine of the province for a century, forestry, has seen its unionised workforce reduced by more than half and its capital return on investment slide dramatically.
IWA went from 30,000 workers to 8,000 in 15 years. Add, during the past 10 years, return on capital investment has averaged 5.3 per cent; however, in the past couple of years it has been at one per cent. This year's projection is 0.1 per cent. Both employer and employee have suffered.
Throw in the free trade agreement that, with its subsequent international competition, has eroded the power of unions and the horizon is not bright for unions. Moreover, union attempts to break into the huge service-sector market - think Wal-Mart - have been anything but successful. Additionally, today's employee is better educated than his predecessors and, therefore, has less need for a union and its sometimes yes - sometimes no protection. A poll by Leger Marketing showed that 81 per cent of working Canadians do not wish to be unionized. Indeed, the picture is not rosy for unions. That is particularly so when union bosses fail to grasp the fundamentals of today's economic times. Today's unions have lost sight of their raison d'être.
Management claims, rightly, that it needs flexibility to adopt the right mix of machines, workers and managerial discretion if it is to succeed in today's competitive, dynamic marketplace. Companies today are no longer in competition with the shop down the street or in the next town but in the next country/continent. Without flexibility, the companies that employ the workers will cease to exist. That, surely, will do nothing to improve the lot of workers, unionized or not.
In a comment that is rather typical of union hierarchy, the boss of the Labour Congress said that the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based think tank, should 'move to Burma' and "see how a government which suppresses workers and citizens' rights in favour of the elites and corporate interests really functions." It has been years since I have been in Burma, but I imagine that a comparison between it and Canada vis-à-vis labour laws is a bit 'out of context.' Canadian labour laws are, for the most part, pretty inclusive. More importantly, labour falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces except in cases of federally-mandated companies such as the railways. In the province to which I pay taxes, labour laws are well-founded and rather compelling. Not much slips between the cracks in B.C.
Now for a personal take on this. In days long gone, I was first a shop steward then a negotiator during collective bargaining. I learned rather quickly that the union to which I belonged was more interested in my dues - hefty ones at that - than it was in looking into employee grievances I brought before it. Moreover, during a provincial general election, I was instructed, as were all other shop stewards, to post on the workplace notice board a demand that members 'contribute' money to the NDP. I did as I was instructed, but as I was and still am opposed to socialism [and liberalism], I duly attached the demand to the board but somehow managed to cover it up with other notices posted previously. My gripe was not that the NDP was soliciting funds from union members, better done privately, but that it was using my union to carry out is nefarious deed. Political parties can seek succour from whomever and wherever they want but not by using backdoor shenanigans.
Twice I represented my place of employment at collective agreement bargaining sessions. I learned that one union representative was more interested in striking than in bargaining which was, I thought, the sole reason for meeting. I came away from both sessions disillusioned with unions and their inward thinking, 'screw the employer' attitude. It was then, more than at any other time, that I saw the veneer that was union stewardship and saw how desperately thin it was. The union representatives that I sat with were more interested in bringing the company to its knees than they were in bettering working conditions/wages for their members. I won the support of the majority of other representatives and we did not strike but we did bargain hard and in the end we gained a penny or two more in wages but had to give up a bit on pensions.
The winners in this case were the employees who kept their jobs and management that remained in business.
I considered it a win of common sense over stunted thinking.
Bob Orrick is a private tutor of English grammar, literature, poetry and Canadian history to off-shore youngsters. His pupils hail from such places as Taiwan, China, Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and Venezuela. He was previously in international marketing, was a ministerial assistant to a provincial cabinet minister, spent a few years as a reporter then editor of a community newspaper and enjoyed a career in the Royal Canadian Navy.
Advertising Information 
