Canada > Alberta > Building Trades Negotiations [Archive]

Sam

07-19-2007, 07:32 PM

Some thoughts about strike action:

It is the responsibility of every member of every union to make preparations, financial and otherwise, for the possibility of a strike. A failure to do so is in most cases, irresponsible on the part of the member. In some cases, factors beyond the member's control may prevent him from preparing financially for the possibility of a strike. This is one reason why unions should be accumulating substantial strike funds, to help any members who are in financial distress for legitimate reasons.
In our case, a strike is not so much about an actual strike, but more about the possibility of a strike, which creates an incentive for both parties to reach a mutally acceptable settlement before a strike actually has to begin.
Our local and international unions should change their policies, and develop an adequate strike fund, which could render financial aid to the members of locals who have little option but to threaten strike action.
Our union negotiators should place a far greater emphasis on improving the terms and conditions of our collective agreement, which in my view, is a very weak document. One example of the weakeness of our contract is that if a member has a grievance, he has to file it himself. How many members have the knowledge and experience to confidently file a proper grievance? Extremely few.
It should be the job steward's responsibility to file a grievance, and the job stewards should be receiving advanced training on processing grievances all the way to arbitration.
Another weakness in our collective agreement is that there is not a proper, legally based disciplinary process that the contractors must follow when disciplining workers. Now we have a situation that is so extremely corrupted we have "union brothers" arbitrarily firing their fellow workers and union members without cause. And in most cases, these "union brothers" are friends with the union officers, who at best give no assistance to the wrongfully terminated members, and at worst, create documentation of all kinds of falsehoods which causes further harm to the unjustly fired worker's career and reputation. The threat of a strike, along with a well trained negotiating team, would enable us to develop contract language that would put an end to these all too frequent travesties of justice. We need contract language that would require employers to follow disciplinary action procedures that are based on well-established case law, for example, verbal warnings, written warnings, and assistance to the worker to correct the problem.
Collective bargaining is not just about winning or losing money on a short term basis. It is also about setting financial compensation standards and working conditions that have an influence in the broader economy. If I have to go on strike for a period of time to win a proper wage increase and improvements in working conditions, I may lose thousands of dollars on the short term, but it is a sacrifice I am willing to make, in order to create better conditions which will tend to uplift society as a whole, including the new members who are coming into the union, who receive the improved wages and conditions, without having had to make a sacrifice to obtain them.
Another weakness in our collective agreement is the language surrounding the "compressed work week." The contractors have us working 10 hours at straight time Monday thru Thursday. A compressed workweek is supposed to be 40 hours worked in a seven day period, where the workers give up the two hours overtime for each day worked, in exchange for a three-day weekend. That is how a compressed workweek is supposed to work. But it's not working that way in most cases. The contractors have us working 10, 11, 18, and 24 consecutive days, while paying us only straight time for our two hours of overtime we work every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. The UA Constitution states quite clearly that the working day for a UA member is eight hours, and the work week is 40 hours. We need a clause in our contract which states that any member who is working hours beyond a four-day x 10-hour per day compressed workweek, who works beyond eight hours in any given day, or beyond 40 hours in any seven-day pay period, shall not be considered to be on a compressed workweek, and shall be paid overtime rates for all hours worked in excess of eight in any given workday and in excess of 40 in any given seven-day pay period.
Another area where the collective agreement is lacking is in the area of "scheduled" overtime. There should be a clause asserting that all overtime shall be voluntary, and that the employer must provide a minimum of 24 hours notice when requesting a worker to work overtime, and that the worker has a right to refuse to work overtime, and that the employer shall not discriminate against any worker who chooses to not work overtime. "Scheduled" overtime is a form of "Forced Labour" that is against the policies of the International Labour Organization, to which Canada is signatory. As things sit right now, contractors (and our so-called "union brothers") can, and they do take discriminatory action against employees and fellow workers who exercise their right to not work overtime.
Our contract should contain a clause that would permit an on-site two-hour employer-paid union meeting once each month, and the job stewards and other elected members would be responsible for conducting these meetings. This way all issues raised by the membership could be forwarded to the business agents, through the job stewards, and all of the business agents news and concerns could be relayed back to the workers, through the job steward.The unions should develop minimum standards of qualification for all union positions, Business Mangers, Agents, Organizers, Committee Members, and Stewards. They should be required to take training and obtain Qualifications that would be recognized by the American Federation of Labor, the Canadian Labour Congress, and the Alberta Federation of Labour. They should be certified, and certification should be a minimum requirement for each of the above mentioned positions. And they should be required to re-certify on a regular basis, at least every three years, similar to the way workers must re-certify for their CSTS qualification.

I believe our building trades unions need to become more like learning and growing institutions, and move away from being little more than hiring halls where tradesmen go to get a job and where officers use the union primarily as their own personal career advancement ladder, working toward getting closer to getting a position in Washington, as Rob Kinsey among others are doing, as an example.

The key is Education, Education, Education. In my view, we must begin to develop minimum educational requirements for every union position, and the education should be of the highest possible quality within the world of organized labour.

Right now we have business agents who do not even know how to handle a grievance. The union is employing a labour lawyer to handle grievances. This is absolutely unacceptable. The labour lawyer should be working in cooperation with the other labour lawyers of the building trades unions to develop improved contract language that will become standard throughout the industry, and the labour lawyers should be lobbying the government to enact legislation that is more worker friendly, and less slanted toward the benefit of the contractors as is currently the case.

These are my current thoughts related to negotiations.

Sam.