In my last post, I talked about the relevance of unions and the difference between public and private sector unions. For this post, I'm going to continue on the unions theme because there are still some things I want to discuss. Let me start with a personal story. In 2004, I worked on a construction site in Brampton where a new housing subdivision was being built. Among the folks I worked with was a guy named Jeff, who was using the money he was making from working on the site to help finance his future education. One day, a person from the construction union arrived on the site and started threatening him, telling him that if he didn't join the union, he could not work on the site. I tried to plead with this union person to give Jeff a break because he was using the money from the job to pay for school. But the union big boy would have none of it and simply repeated to me what he said to Jeff.
Unfortunately, this kind of situation that my former work colleague found himself in is not uncommon. In many workplaces, especially in the public sector, union membership is mandatory and there's nothing a would-be worker can do about it. He or she must join the union or not be allowed to have the job in question. The same goes for the employers. Once a collective bargaining agreement is concluded between the employer and the union, the employer in question faces severe restrictions on who they can hire to do the required work. It can also be difficult to get rid of a unionized employee, even if he or she is not up to the job. In fact, in unionized workplaces, it's often not how good you are at your job, it's how long you've been in the union that determines your prospects for work. I am, of course, referring to the concept of seniority. This is what drives a lot of people crazy and makes people hate the unions.
I don't know about you, but shouldn't the best person for the job get that job? I think so, but unfortunately, a lot of the unions don't. And for those folks who happen to be looking for their first full-time job, unions can be a real impediment. Say, for example, that you're a new teacher in Ontario. You just got your teacher's certification and are ready to begin your career. Unfortunately, you're going have a very steep mountain to climb. Not only is there a surplus of new teachers, but there are also a whole bunch of older teachers holding onto their jobs. Obviously, you can't blame them for this, it's just human nature. The problem is that some of these older teachers may not be that great at their jobs. I graduated from a public high school and I can tell you that there were a couple of older teachers there that shouldn't have been there in the first place. But it didn't matter how bad they were, because of course they were in the profession for a long time and hence had the seniority in their union to stay where they were. In the meantime, younger teachers, like the unfortunate man who taught me economics in my last year of high school, were the first ones to be laid off whenever cutbacks needed to be made.
The unions are very hesitant to use the term seniority when describing how people who have been long-time members get to keep their jobs while folks who are not fortunate enough to have been in the union long enough don't. Instead, they like to use another term: job security. Yes, I do believe that everyone deserves the right to a decent salary to support themselves and their families, but I don't believe that you're entitled to keep a job just because you've been doing it for a long time and regardless of how good you are at it. Going back to my teacher example, I have Ontario Certified Teachers working in my company because they can't find jobs. And one of the reasons they can't find jobs? They are blocked by a union culture that rewards seniority over merit.
Forcing Workers to Join Unions and Contribute Money to Them is Undemocratic, Especially When the Unions Exceed Their Mandates
One of the fundamental freedoms that we should all cherish is the freedom of association, which of course includes the right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining. However, shouldn't this freedom also include freedom from association? That is, the freedom not to join an association, whether it's a union or some other form of group. It's simply unfair for any worker, especially a person looking for their first full-time job, to be required to join an organization that they may have no interest in joining just so they can be gainfully employed. Forced membership in any association is unbecoming of a democracy and more characteristic of a dictatorship.
In fact, in the case of unions, not only are regular working folks faced with joining an association they may not agree with. They're also forced to give money to that association, and they may not agree with how that money is spent, especially if it is spent on causes that have nothing to do with defending the rights of the union's members. Take, for example, an incident last year where the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) published a newsletter in which it accused Israel of war crimes (see: http://www.torontosun.com/2013/03/06/postal-union-cupw-slammed-for-anti-israel-newsletter).
I use this example, not simply because I am an Israeli who supports his country, but also because I resent a public sector union using the dues from their members, who are paid with my tax dollars, to finance newsletters that have nothing to do with defending their rights. The point is that unions exist to protect the rights of the working people whom they represent and from whom they collect dues. They should not be using those dues to pay for causes that have nothing to do with protecting their members' rights, especially if they happen to be a public sector union whose dues ultimately come from taxpayers.
Some would even argue that during the current provincial election campaign, unions have exceeded their mandate by openly campaigning against Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservatives. Yes, I do believe that during this election, the unions are pulling out all the stops to make sure that the Tories don't get elected and that they can continue to get much friendly treatment from Premier Kathleen Wynne's Liberals. However, I believe that they are well within their rights to do this as whoever forms the next provincial government certainly does have a bearing on the rights of Ontario's public sector workers. And if the public service unions think that they will get a better deal from the Grits than from the other parties, it's their prerogative to support them. Personally, I don't think the honeymoon between the Liberals and the public service unions will last if Wynne's government does get re-elected.
Time to End Mandatory Union Membership and Contributions
I believe it's time to give all workers, both in the private and public sectors, a choice of whether or not to be part of a union, and that choice should not cost them a job. A fairer deal would allow someone to opt out of joining a union and paying union dues in exchange for not being entitled to all the benefits that the union in question bargained for. It's basically a trade-off. Be part of the union, pay union dues and get all the benefits of a unionized employee, like wage guarantees, health coverage and paid vacation time, or decide not to be part of the union and waive the benefits that union membership would give you. As I have said before, I firmly believe that forming unions and collective bargaining are fundamental rights. However, just because we have rights doesn't mean we should be compelled to exercise them. For example, we have the right to speak our minds, but that doesn't mean we have to. We can keep our mouths shut and keep what we think to ourselves. In the same respect, although we do have the right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining, we should also be free not to do so. After all, democracy is all about choice, isn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment