In the news tonight...
Earlier today, the provincial government tabled a bill that will dramatically restrict the right of unions to engage in strikes and other job action. The Profit Protection and Worker Disempowerment Act will apply to all unionized businesses where workers are employed at two or more work sites - such as large chain-store operations and manufacturers with multiple plants covered by one collective agreement. Under the proposed legislation, unions will still be able to strike, however, only 50% of the workers in any given bargaining unit will be permitted to walk off the job. The remainder will be required to continue working for the duration of the strike, in the interests of ensuring that the business remains financially viable. Unions will be required to select the work locations where the "approved scabbing" will take place and will need to notify company officials of their decision a full year in advance. This will give company officials time to develop strategies that will minimize the impact of the strike. Workers selected for approved scabbing will be restricted from involvement in the collective bargaining process and will not participate in ratification of the contract settlement although it will apply to them. The new bill has been hailed by neo-conservative elements and business leaders as something that is long overdue.
This news item is, of course, completely fictitious. Whatever anti-union sentiments lurk within our various provincial administrations, it is doubtful that any of them would proceed with such a draconian and manipulative piece of legislation. If they did, the entire labour movement would be up in arms and out in the streets protesting like it hasn't in decades. The leaders of the mainstream unions, the heads of the various federations, the union-friendly politicians would be beside themselves with indignation and rightfully so. Even people who are not terribly supportive of labour would be hard pressed to not see the injustice of it all. This twisted piece of work would rob organized labour of its single most effective tool (the strike), would drive deep divisions within bargaining units and would legitimize scab labour by forcing large numbers of union members to become scabs.
Free collective bargaining and the right to strike are fundamental rights of organized labour. Workers fought and, in some cases, even died for these rights. In some parts of the world they still do. These rights are important because they provide workers with leverage (power) at the bargaining table. The power of the Power Source is derived from its ability to impact the employer's bottom line. The goal of a for-profit enterprise is to maximize profit. Every for-profit business in the marketplace is focused on just one objective: to make the biggest profit it can. The shareholders expect it, investors demand it, it's rule #1. This is why large corporations continue to cut staff even while raking in millions. This is why successful businesses ask unions for wage concessions.
The strike is an effective and powerful tool. It is, in fact, the only powerful tool workers have. It is effective because it restricts the ability of the business to maximize profit. Every day that production is stopped or sales are below forecast or customers are shopping the competition, is a day that the goal of profit-maximization is not being met. The impact of the strike is immediate as are the implications for those responsible for the business.
The power of the strike and the importance of the right to strike are recognized throughout the labour movement. Mainstreamers and reformers alike agree that the ability to hit the employer where it hurts is critical. That is why attempts on the part of government to restrict the right to strike of certain groups of workers or to otherwise interfere in the bargaining process have historically been met with fierce opposition by the labour movement. That is why our fictitious bill will likely remain fictitious.
But anti-union politicians and business leaders can take heart. While it is doubtful that even the most anti-labour administration would dare table something like our fictitious bill, certain of our biz-unions are working hard to make it a reality. Case in point:
The Strike-Minimizer
Thousands of members of UFCW Local 1518 in BC are subject to a bizarre protocol that saddles them with pretty much the same conditions as those in our fictitious bill. The protocol was signed off between their union and their employer, Overwaitea Food Group, in the late 1990's. According to the protocol, their bargaining unit is split into two zones. A year before negotiations begin, the union selects one of the two and notifies the employer that this will be the zone that will be the subject of negotiations. Workers in the "bargaining" zone have the right to strike and to vote on the contract settlement. Workers in the other zone (we'll call it the "right to work" zone) are required to keep on working if a strike occurs. They may be charged special assessments (up to 20% of their pay from what we understand) to help fund the strike, but beyond that have no further involvement in the dispute. They do not even get to vote on the contract settlement. It simply applies to them, whatever it is and whatever they may think of it. Is it any wonder that many Local 1518 members are balking at a proposed additional dues assessment to fund a possible strike in 2003?
This is only one example of a union agreeing to an arrangement that will restrict the rights of its members to strike and, most importantly, to strike effectively. There are others.
Workers at certain Provigo Maxi stores in Ontario that are subject to a "Partnering Agreement" between UFCW Local 175 and Provigo Foods. That deal requires that contract expiry dates at unionized stores be staggered such that "not more than one store in any region or sector is vulnerable to strike action at any time." Given this agreement, it doesn't really matter how many workers want to strike, what their issues are or how obstinate the company is being at negotiations. Not more than one location can be out at the same time. While a multi-location strike can have dire implications for a company in the retail business, a strike at one out of a dozen or one out of several dozen is a drop in the bucket. The collective strength of the workers is reduced to something close to zero.
For those biz-union leaders who aren't "cutting edge" enough to sign onto one of these strike-minimizer agreements, there are more conventional methods: Multi-year collective agreements - 6 years at Loblaws in Ontario, 6 years for workers at Zehr's Ontario stores, 7.5 years for workers at the Serca Foodservice warehouse in Mississauga - restrict workers' rights to strike by reducing the number of times they are able to bargain. Up until recently, the average collective agreement in Ontario had a term of 2 years. Workers with 6 year agreements will, in effect, miss two opportunities to bargain and to use their power to improve their working conditions, while their employers keep on raking it in.
What's wrong with this picture? Whether it's a Partnering Agreement or a six-year deal, the bargaining power of the Power Source is severely reduced. A company that doesn't need to worry about a strike at more than one work location at any given time doesn't have much to worry about. An employer, who doesn't need to bargain more than once every decade, doesn't have much to worry about. A bargaining unit where half the members can't strike is a bargaining unit divided. Union members, who are not allowed to participate in a job action, aren't going to feel supportive of those who are. This is a problem.
But there's an even bigger problem: There's no way out of these deals. In the case of Local 1518, the 2-zone protocol is part of the collective agreement. Presumably the protocol could be bargained out at the next round of negotiations but what if the employer refuses to let it go? Is it a strike issue? Even if it is, how effective can a strike be if half the bargaining unit can't strike? Unless the employer is willing to let it go (and we doubt that it would), the union and the members are stuck with it, forever.
In the case of Provigo Maxi stores, the strike-minimizer agreement is a separate agreement between the UFCW and the employer. Unless this agreement allows either party to unilaterally opt out (and we doubt that it does), the UFCW is committed to it indefinitely and so are the members.
The workers' bargaining power has been traded away- permanently - by their union - usually in exchange for voluntary recognition for thousands of new members who will also join the ranks of the disempowered. Where's it going to stop? Among the mainstream union leaders and the heads of the federations, nobody is getting excited. There are no protests and no condemnation of these arrangements - after all, it's not some hostile government that imposed them. It was the unions themselves. That makes it OK.
A big bold prediction
Within the next decade we will see a major breakthrough in union representation in the service industry. Thousands of workers in a wide cross section of service industry businesses will form unions and will negotiate good collective agreements. They will achieve these good agreements by making full use of their leverage (power) at the bargaining table. Their members will know when their employers are most vulnerable and will exploit that vulnerability, fully - even ruthlessly some may say. The quality of those agreements will compel others to do likewise. Eventually, service industry union members will number in the hundreds of thousands.
Which union will make this breakthrough? We don't know - it probably doesn't exist yet. We said the workers would form unions - not join existing unions. Some of the unions that exist today will end up doing some organizing during the big service industry sweep, but not until some new and very inspiring union(s) blaze a path. Does this sound far-fetched? We think it's inevitable.
The inevitable new unions of the service industry
For workers who are dissatisfied with their union, there are not a lot of options: decertify the union, join another union, reform your existing union or start a new union. Decertification is never much of an option. The workplace power imbalance means going head-to-head with an employer individually is futile joining another union may be a viable option except that the CLC and other labour umbrella orgs won't allow it. Reforming an unresponsive bureaucratic union is nearly impossible. It's a lot like the individual worker going head-to-head with the large corporation. Union members are virtually powerless to take on the biz-union leadership for many reasons, most of which have been discussed on this site at one time or another. Starting a new union is an option that is not often considered by disaffected members but for some, it may be the only viable option there is. Locked into strike-minimizer agreements that effectively disempower them, forever, shunned by other unions because they are already tagged as "the property of...", these workers will find themselves with nowhere to go but their own way.
And don't think it can't happen...
[Excerpts from this week's MFD forum]
*It's time for a change* is arguably the most popular phrase in my workplace these days! It has become the closing statement in almost every lunchroom discussion.I'm sick of politicians. I want and we need fighters not candy a**'s who tell us just what they think we want to hear and BS their way through everything. Don't sell yourself short cause you're not full of it. These guys show their true colours every day. I say it's time for a change.
What reformers were up to this week:
Comparing notes: Reformers from UA Local 787 continue to share their views and their stories with us and for that we're grateful. Their most recent article, Local 787's Excellent Election sounds sooooo familiar. The more we learn about other biz-unions, the more we are convinced that we have a lot of common ground. Apart from their undemocratic election practices, the UA, the UFCW, the Teamsters and other unions appear to be connected through their benefit and pension administration processes. We need to /cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=000061">find out more about what's going on in this nest-of-biz-unionism and we will.
Boxcutter /cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=18&t=000002">wants to know where else bargaining is going on in UFCW-land. It's a good idea to share information. We know about a few rounds of bargaining that are happening now but let's get the low down on all of 'em.
Getting political: Forum contributors Joe Blow and Scott McPherson are talking about putting the pressure on provincial (and maybe federal?) politicians to address the lack of democracy in unions. Joe has a meeting lined up with an MLA and has already written a couple of briefing papers. Joe is encouraging others to do the same. Union members are voters and there are a lot of us out there. It's time to get this issue on the political agenda.
Linking up: Our latest link is on the web site of the Canadian Committee for Labour History Check out this site. It's a great source of historical information about the Canadian labour movement.
Redefining ourselves: Quit calling us mice. We're the Power Source.
Coming up this week: We begin a new feature series. UFCW, Local 777 - a triumph of biz-partner unionism.