Collective bargaining is the tool of big business, as it makes life much easier for for large business owners to "make a deal" with their employees. But collective bargaining does not recognize the talents of the indicidual, assuming that all employees are identical units of production - nothing more than robots. Employees should be able to bargain one-on-one with their employers however "inconvenient" that may be to the bosses. Perhaps that would mean the end of big business, requiring as it does, these kinds of crutches for their very existence, in addition to government bias on behalf of business. Either that, or the collective bargaining process should include an assessment of the merits of the individuals represented by the various unions

The only thing preventing an even faster increase in the greedy from fleecing the workers are unions. The masses have little to battle the oppressive corporations except their collective labour. Only through banding together can we protect ourselves. Marx was errily right in this. To allow the erosion of workers collective rights is to court social crisis.

"Collective bargaining is the tool of big business, as it makes life much easier for for large business owners to "make a deal" with their employees."

You have to be kidding me! Big business hates collective bargaining. Look at the USA, all of the new manufacturing facilities are in Kentucy, Alabama, Texas, Georgia or the Carolinas - and why? Because they have right to work legislation.

Unions helped shape society the way it is today. However, today is not the day of yesterday. Our standard of living is high, there are equal rights to employment (generally speaking), and working conditions are fine.

Let's face facts - todays unions are no longer about protecting the health, mistreatment and working conditions workers faced. In fact, if you work in a union - you have it all - defined hours, vacation and sick time - the lazy man's dream come true!

Todays unions are about trying to save jobs. Unions exist in dying or decaying industries. Technology is replacing people, which isn't a bad thing.

Then there are hospitalities and government workers unions - their only goal is to collect a great paycheck and do little for it...

the collective bargaining process should include an assessment of the merits of the individuals represented by the various unions!

Unions do in fact try their best to present the case for each and every type of worker they represent.
To highlight each individual worker within each such group would be unfair as it is impossible to find a person who could give such documentation.
Finally a union has to protect the workers who are either having sick-time or simply getting close to retirement. With "free enterprise" such workers are just let go.
I am sure that many capitalists would love to see the practice in the Real Estate business (of firing the low man on the sales list every month) to be extended to every bargaining unit.
That would bring us back to slave labour, where you work till you fall, or else suffer the consequences!
It sounds great to reward each worker according to his input, but it only benefits those who happen to be healthy, young and able to devote their lives to just keeping a job.

"the collective bargaining process should include an assessment of the merits of the individuals represented by the various unions!"

Excellent quote grumpy! This is probably the right wing's biggest beef with unions. Individuals and hard work are not rewarded. In fact, it is almost frowned upon. The union environment rewards complacency and conflict.

Unions see themselves as a foe of the company, not a partner. The problem is that they went too far, and now when they cry, nobody wants to listen. The public is aware that their benefits and work demands far exceed non unionized employees, who also seem to be doing just fine.

They will continue to be "beat down" until they once again revert to protecting basic and fundamental workers rights, and not lobbying for extra vacation days and inflated wages - and forcing these demands by interrupting public services.

"However, today is not the day of yesterday."

Ah, newspeak. Ain't it grand? Orwell was a soothsayer..

individuals and hard work are not rewarded- Oh spare me! You can be the best and the brightest but if da boss has a hard on for you you're dust. The management ranks where I am are full of ass kissers and those that play golf with the right people.

RE: collective bargaining not recognizing the best and brightest... just because a collective agreement is in place doesn't mean an employer can't give their best employees better deals and/or bonuses. It (the agreement) is a base line, not a ceiling. For some reason however, you don't thear that from employers too much.

The reason why unionization rates are dropping is that unions have historically stood up to protect the uneducated and those who can't or won't fend for themselves better. Most of us can easily recall when our union has stood up for the lazy or incompetent during a grievance process, for example.

Today, especially among the young, workers are better educated, and more self-confident that they don't need the protection of a union. This is especially true among unions that simply try to prevent the inevitable tide of technology from changing their jobs.

how about the right of individuals to not be forced to join a union.

If I was a CUPE in Ontario I would right pissed at the whackjobs boycotting Israel - I would want out but couldn't do it.

Rights are rights, right ??

I see a lot of "I'm allright Jack's" here!
The reason you are so very allright is that unions at one time took a stand for the working man.
Be he uneducated or not, the working man is at the mercy of the capitalists.
if he needs you, you are made to feel welcome, but as soon as a new man shows up and will do your job cheaper, you are history!
Yes kissing asses and belonging to the right golf club and church helps, but should that be on your job description?
Right now you may be riding the crest of the wave,try to imagine if anyone in your family gets sick, or heaven forbid you get disabled?
Seems solidarity only is appreciated once your ass is hanging out of your pants? Beware with out present world situation that may happen anytime

"the collective bargaining process should include an assessment of the merits of the individuals represented by the various unions!"

It's the manager's job to do performance appraisals.

Unions are as relevant today as they were 100 years ago: we are still fighting the same issues. Companies are constantly trying to reduce safety standards in the workplace, increase workloads and reduce wages and health benefits.
What has changed are Company strategies to achieve these reductions. The right wing has a very defined agenda and fighting their fight in a very organized manner across the world. Labour’s shortcoming is that they didn’t recognize many of the corporate world’s strategies until long after they had agreed to concessions, to help the poor align companies compete in a “global economy”. Contracting out has created two tier workplaces where one group has better pay and benefits for performing the same job. This in turn creates a workplace atmosphere that pits one worker against another…a companies dream come true, let the workers beat the crap out of each other, sit back and enjoy.
When you state agreeing with people like Capitalism, you know you’ve swallowed the corporate worlds BS hook line and sinker.

Gloomy:

"The reason you are so very allright is that unions at one time took a stand for the working man."

Unions were a very important part of our history, and are rapidly becoming part of our past. Like I said, they went too far and are now agents trying to broker the best deal for their members. Workplace safety is nearly off the map now, especially in the USA with lawsuits and insurance costs.

Martin said it perfectly - Today, especially among the young, workers are better educated, and more self-confident that they don't need the protection of a union. This is especially true among unions that simply try to prevent the inevitable tide of technology from changing their jobs.

We now operate in a diversified economy. There are lots of jobs in lots of different segments of the economy. If you are motivated and work hard, it is very easy to make a good living in this world. I know several idiots (including a kid with ADD like myself) do very well in this world.

If you go into work with a good attiutde, work hard and take pride in what you do - life will be good to you!!!

Same old robber-baron rhetoric.
The greedy corporate elite are ever searching to outsourch our jobs to the lowest bidder to maiximize their blood profits. If this means exploiting millions of displaced, desperate slaves in brutal dictatorships so be it. Hey china!!
Race to the bottom economics.
If ever there was a time for unions it is now.

Logam writes: "how about the right of individuals to not be forced to join a union."

Workers are not forced to join unions. However, they still have to pay dues. If you are going to benefit from a collective agreement negotiated by the union in your workplace, you need to share in paying for the associated costs.

Too true jester. The only sourse of protection from corporate greed in today's global economy is in fact unionism. By the way the new ipsos Read poll is out showing a greater lead by the B.C.Liberals in popularity. This once again shows just how uninformed the average citizen is regarding how they are being used by corporate greed. It is even more imprtant that our unions use their clout to educate their members as well as the sheep of society what is really being inflicted upon them and their children

The Supreme Court of Canada decided in a trilogy of cases in 1987 that collective bargaining was a matter of public policy, and not a constitutionally protected right. So, that's an old issue and we already know the answer. However, reading between the lines, it does seem that somebody has been asleep at the switch for the past 2 decaded and failed to notice this.

Saying something is a right doesn't make it so. Only the courts can do that. So no amount of PR will help. Identifying something as a "human right" has simply become a game in our political system by which one set of claims can trump others.

So, we're really talking about a public policy issue on old fashioned terms: is it appropriate, and when might it be appropriate, for governments to interfere in the collective bargaining process.

That's a real and genuine issue, and I certainly agree with Mr. Dobbin that this is one area which has fallen into the cracks. But financing a campaign to call it a matter of human right is--frankly--a waste of money.

,

Capitalism, your glasses are indeed rosy. Three quick comments. I have all too often seen management (read lower and midlevel) throw up their hands and not do their jobs (performance appraisal for example) and then blame the presence of a union for the poor performance of their workforce. Managers manage, they should not abdicate. Two, employment conditions in some of the new, generally nonunion industries are great, in some they are terrible with working conditions resembling 1930's assembly plants except they are cleaner today(got to take care of the expensive electronics). While unions were strong in traditional industries employing unskilled and semiskilled workers, some of the more militant and powerful unions (or groups such as the doctors who act like they are in a union) are actually composed of skilled people. Finally, some countries that have experienced significant growth in GDP and productivity (and real wage rates), particularly Ireland, have unionization rates that are far higher than Canada and BC however, in several European situations, unions and employers tend to take a much more collaborative (and respectful) stance in their approach to each other. Perhaps, the presence of a union is not a problem, rather, a acrimonious relationship between the parties to labour relations may be.

"Like I said, they went too far and are now agents trying to broker the best deal for their members."

You could say the same thing about corporations, CEO's, and their shareholders, yet we don't hear too many cries from the right-wing to rein in that runaway horse.

Unions aren't going anywhere. There may be fluctuations in membership, but the institution and the need for it are as relevant as ever.

Wake up! As long as the world is divided between a minority who own the economy and a vast majority who work for that minority, there will be a need for unions. Until the economy is placed on a rational basis - each citizen having both a share of the ownership and a say in how things are run - in other words, a cooperative economy, we will have need for unions. To deny ourselves the protection of unions at this time is to enter a den of theives and murderers unarmed. I admit there is alot wrong with unions, chief of which is they are not militant enough and are not democratic enough. We need a trade union movement similar to what they have in France or Italy, instead of the wimpy bisiness unions we, have. (with a few exceptions, of course)

The Blakeney quote by Dobbins is an interesting one. It really tells the whole story. Where once government was the voice of the people...it is now the voice of corporations. It is not governance that is the villian here, indeed as Blakeney makes clear, in the past it was through the "active" process of real governance..and it's concern for the human rights of its citizens that our freedom and rights were expanded. (minimum wage, labour regulations etc)

That was when government still actually valued life and human interests over their present necrophilic fascination for the dead glitter of corporations.

All too easily the corporate world has successfully campaigned against the idea of governance, cleverly implanting a distaste for it in our culture in order to serve their own interests better. In what is now surely the strangest kind of perversity the rights of human beings are perceived more and more to be obstacles standing in the way of the well-oiled "rights of the Machine".... of the things of Big Business. So the value of people, our human rights, and thus the power of our unions (partly co-opted by business as well), have been conveniently marked down, made almost negligible... to facilitate a smoother , more profitable ride for corporations.

In fact, even though the neo-cons on this site consistently rail against the evils of big government, ironically, it is they who use and depend upon government's "helpful hand" the most. Business monopolizes, lobbys, and attempts to seduce government... they couldn't do without it.... because it is the voice of government that speaks for corporations now...in defense of them....not in defense of us. Human beings have been de-prioritized...we are pushed farther and farther down the list as corporations more and more co-opt and use government infra-structure to promote and defend "corporate rights " above all else...making their sordid marriage with government the biggest, most corrupt, most monopolistic union of all...and these are the same guys who decry unions...when what they really don't like is a level playing field ...they want all the balls in their own court...which is what this government /corporate merger gives them.

If the erosion of collective bargaining is ever going to end , we will have to stop tolerating this sham corporate-style of governance (government neither for the people or by the people).....the bar has gotta be set way higher...and the voice of the people must be heard much louder.

Good point Lynn. What the neocons conveniently forget is the corporations they love so much are the creations of the state. They love the state as long as it supports capitalism, hate the state where it helps ordinary people. We should pull the plug on the corporations - abolish the laws that created them in the first place. No more limited liability - everyone ought to be responsible for their debts. Abolish the horrible "corporation as fictitious person" fraud.

"If you go into work with a good attiutde, work hard and take pride in what you do - life will be good to you!!!"

also add, you must be young, healthy, belong to the right golfclub, church, rod&gunclub, and oh yes kiss ass!
merely doing a good job is not a guarantee you will not be told that from Monday you are not needed any longer!

I know many teachers who go to work with a good attitude, work hard and take pride in what they do...watch how the governent treats them next week.

Oh Canada.

Amazing how many people fell for the term " signing bonus " ..created by the govt to steer negativity once again at unions and away from them.. who created the amass of labour problems in the province .In fact the so called bonuses are nothing but the very same money they took away from unions off the backs of thrown out workers, ripped up contracts and " money saved " by cheap assing public services. Even then its only a very tiny fraction of it back .renamed and.heavily taxed to boot. Wish people would check into things before blindly buying tidbits that Campbell throws out via paid off media. He must just laugh every day at what people blindly believe.

From the article:

Hmmm... I thought "Corporate personhood" was a US only legal idea related to their 14th amendment to the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

I would be interested in any court decisions or laws that support the "Corporate personhood" idea as a valid one in Canada.

I have a man working for me for the last thee months. He came onto one of my job sites and asked, in broken English, for work. Turned out he was a recent Mexixan immigrant with a wife and two kids. He had been in Canada for all of two days. I hired him on the spot for $15,00 hour, the starting wage for everybody in my company be he/she be a labourer, former or receptionist.

I will call him Juan. Juan, from the outset, worked like crazy. We had to tell him to take his breaks and to go home at quitting time. Turns out he was an engineer in Mexico. Now he is making blueprints for me using CAD. Since he comes from a country where matierials are not plettiful, he has the knack of making more with less than I would have ever imagined, saving in materials, time and wastage. Juan is now studying English at night and working on his civil engineering certification. He is making alot more than $15.00 an hour now and he is very well liked in the company.

My point is would, in a union company, would Juan be able to shine in the way he does in my non-union company? Not very likely, me thinks. This is where the union "movement" in Canada has really missed the boat; they are not flexible, able to change or adapt. This is why so many workers have let them go by. Unions simply do not fit them our their work places. Perhaps that is why only 27% of all building trade workers are now in unions. Don't get on the high horse, either; non-union companies pay just as well as union ones in this business.

I wonder if unions could ever be able to look inward and ask why their membership and influence has waned so much recently? Certainly, they have been on my work sites and I welcome them. My workers are not the lunch bucket slobbering beer swillers of the 1960's. They are a damed clever lot and choose what is in their best interest. So far it has not to join some American based union so their dues can be sent to the USA.

Of course, the union "movement" has not seen the massive changes in the workplace in the last 20 or so years. They can only blame others for their lack of success, spout rhetoric and fund a party that will never form a government.

Hardly much success, is it? Must be somebody else's fault.

Quote:

"In fact the so called bonuses are nothing but the very same money they took away from unions off the backs of thrown out workers, ripped up contracts and " money saved " by cheap assing public services. Even then its only a very tiny fraction of it back .renamed and.heavily taxed to boot " wrote JDC.

Exactly, excellent comment. These guys are masters of the cheap trick...they pulled this on seniors and the disabled as well. Unions should have been insulted and outraged that the present government had the audacity to call the underhanded return of such a small portion of the workers' own money... a mere pittance in compensation for that which was ripped so ruthlessly from their hands, should now, laughably, be called a "bonus" in any regard.

And right on, anarcho.

lynn, I have a lot of respect for the government unions that settled for the basic reason that they have shown that they can in fact hammer out a deal at the table. The so called "ripped up" deals were sweet heart giveways by the NDP that they never budgeted for. Now every BC public sector union has shown that is able to deal with their employer. This will be a great help to them in the future

Except for one, that is. That particualr one has never been able to make a deal. Even their lap dogs had to legislate a contract on them.

"I thought "Corporate personhood" was a US only legal idea ..."

Rotlin, see WEALTH BY STEALTH (Between The Lines, Toronto
2003) by Harry Glasbeek, who is a corporate lawyer and Prof.
Emeritus of Law at York University's prestigious Osgoode Hall School
Of Law. He thinks that corporate personhood applies in Canada

I am not sure about what Mr. Dobbins is trying to say, but what I understand he is trying to do is say that the current method of a work place going union, which varies between Provinces ( Quebec has a bizarre card signing system ), should be further loosened up to use the Charter's human rights provisions to make this easier to happen.
I can't tell you how pissed off many employees working for various employers , would be if they were forced into a Union because a minority group of workers decide to take the employer to court, claiming human rights violations, because they, as a minority of the workers should be able to use the courts to bully the majority of the employees into a union, which would equalize the entire workforce into a homogenized mass of equals.
What a way to destroy a country.
Individualistic over achievement should always prevail if we want our society to improve.

Capitalism: "Except for one, that is. That particualr one has never been able to make a deal. Even their lap dogs had to legislate a contract on them."

Which one are you talking about? If you are talking the teachers, your statement is an outright lie. The NDP legislated a contract in the summer of 1998 because of a DEAL with the BCTF. The BCTF, through it's locals, signed dozens of collective bargaining agreements with school boards before provincial bargaining was mandated. There is one reason that provincial bargaining has failed so badly with teachers: The BCPSEA. When teacher bargaining is finally fixed, BCPSEA will undoubtedly be scrapped. It isn't accountable to the school boards it bargains for or even the public that pays for it. Interestingly enough, BCPSEA was created by the NDP. Lapdogs? I think not. Way to stuff your head into that ideological, partisan sand!

Chris H -

I never made that statement, it was working man, who by the way, wrote a very inspiring piece about Jaun. Jaun is the type of person we need to be bringing to Canada.

I haven't paid too much attention to the specifics of public sector collective bargaining. It annoys me to no end having to listen to the likes of Sims and Sinclair - these ideological, greedy, arrogant, self ritcheous, greedy and confrontational fools aren't worth a second of my attention.

Capitalism:
You have to be kidding me! Big business hates collective bargaining.

It's a sham. Cap!. Companies like Ford and GM could not exist if they had to negotiate with each and every employee. Ergo, they l;ove unions -- saves them a lot of trouble. And as to what these large companies did before unionism? Well:

http://www.umwa.org/history/ludlow.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_General_Strike

they just called on their buds in government to dotheir dirty work for them.

I am very certain Ford and GM can't stand their unions. They are getting hammered in the Motor City, whereas Toyota and Hyundai are flourishing in the stick of Alabama. They are not unionized, yet are offered competitive wages - same as they would be in Detroit.

However, productivity and quality in those plants far exceed those in Michigan. In fact, the Alabama plants run with less than 2/3rds of the workforce.

GM and Ford on the other hand are being bankrupted by pension obligations and health care costs.

Don't ever direct me to some union website to corroborate your opinions.

Why are Toyota and BMW in the South and in Texas able to negiotate without collective bargaining?

It is easy - the company offers a salary, the employee accepts the salary. The employee eventually gets promoted, or is offered a raise - this is usually done by work function and not seniority. If he doesn't like the salary offer - he can quit, if he refuses to quit and sits on the sidelines unproductively, he is fired and somebody else is right there to take his job. This is what you call supply and demand for labour. Not some controlled, regulated, bloated and inefficient system that you support.

A corporation is run for its shareholders, not its employees. Jobs are not an entitlement, they are a priveledge. If you accept a job with an employer, you accept their terms and conditions. If you don't like them, find another job. This may not be great for the guy that wants little more than to collect a paycheck, but in the end, everybody ultimately benefits. Competition controls prices, prevents monopolies, diversifies the workforce and provides product innovations.

Imagine where we would be today if BC Tel and the other global communications companies were still government owned and had monoplies. We would still be using age-old landlines, without all of the new service offerings.

The days where unskilled workers could band together and demand a far better than average salary are coming to an end. The economy has become too diversified, and in the old days, if you didn't have a friend of relative in the union, you weren't hired anyway....

Working Man,

Signing bonuses are a corporate idea and I think unions are stupid to fall for them.

The idea of bonuses in the workplace has always pitted worker against fellow worker.The same ploy is being used on unions. It is a divide and conquer strategy for playing the game and being a good little boy and girl...for behaving.

Unions should set their own agenda...stick to the importance of defending rights in the workplace and a fair wage...and not let Campbell call the sly return of a small portion of their own money a "bonus".

They should tell these weasels to give them all the money back they ripped away from them first...and then we'll talk a new contract.

If a thief steals a hundred dollars from your pocket, returns only twenty of it....(is that a bonus?)...and then the thief/weasel has the audacity to say" let's chat over coffee about "the new deal" I'd like to make with you". Yeah, right.

I say first let's deal with the theft that took place...then we'll talk coffee.

Lynn:

"The idea of bonuses in the workplace has always pitted worker against fellow worker."

What a joke! The idea of bonuses provides an incentive for those who wish to work harder, and achieve their targets. It is a great motivating tool. There should be competition in the workplace, and those most productive should be rewarded accordingly.

You are part of the ultra-left. You see the workforce as a united front, with equal wages and rights. You are only a few steps away from communism, seriously.

Some goverments arn't too keen on unions for sure. The RCMP have been trying for years to get enough numbers to form a union. Egads the boys in serge want to organize, as they watch their pay get far behind other cop forces. Wonder why the RCMP is always looking for more people. It's the pay and benefits folks.

I spent a fair amount of time in and around Eurpope and way back then we noticed that a lot of countries have unionized military. Were they an unstable bunch singing Solidarity. No way, they were very bit at tough as we were.

The right to organize is fough all the time, in high places. Check out Walmart or McDonalds. People sturck long before unions existed. The need is still here.

Lots of stories about companies trying to prevent unionizing in the work place.
My God, here in BC we have a 6 dollar starting wage, and kids of 12 working, and untrianed workers dying. Who is making the profits, not the kids or new workers for sure

I appreciate your comments about "Juan" Working Man. Yes, people who work hard should be rewarded. I work in an industry that has been greatly impacted by technology and the open access to labour markets that free trade has brought about in this country. I have worked in both union and non union companies and I can say without qualification that I would prefer to work in a union environment any day.

Now, before you rush out to characterize me as a "lunch bucket slobbering beer swiller", I will point out that in my earlier years I was an assertive, achieving individual who, much like Juan, through my own energies was able to succeed and excel in a very tough and demanding business. But I remember well the jealousies and animosities that were prevalent in the non union environments that I worked in. There was little cooperation between employees in terms of sharing information and skills because everybody was trying to compete with each other in order to get that raise the boss was offering to the select few. At the risk of sounding like some socialist demagogue, I can tell you the environment I work in now is much more beneficial to my employer as we tend to share our knowledge and resources amongst each other. We work smarter and are more efficient than our non union contemporaries. The reason we are able pull this off is because we are all paid a decent wage and have all the benefits that collective bargaining has brought to us. We do not need to clamor over each other to grasp that brass rail. Rather, we work as a unit and help each other out when one of us gets in a jam. We put our egos aside and do our best to contribute to our company.

You would do well to reflect on these comments the next time you care to mischaracterize and offer up stereotypes of the union worker. Enterprise and hard work are not the exclusive domain of "free enterprisers" like yourself!

KitsCommuter:

I enjoyed reading your piece there. A pragmatic socialist, you are! I do agree that the business model your employer has implemented can indeed work. Though, it can only do so if the customer base is socially conscious (i.e. Howald Shultz and Starbucks) or if the workforce is very educated and lifestyle oriented (i.e. engineering firms).

A good corporate example of that is also Intrawest. Their employees are paid below market value (much of the time), but generally work fewer hours than comparable professionals and have great lifestyle benefits.

The problem with human nature (which we cannot change) is greed. Humans (myself included) are greedy. However, money is not the only source of greed. People greed power and lifestyle too. The stereotype unionist greeds benefits and a high standard of living for very little energy. Not all, but many don't contribute anything outside of their narrow job duties, nor have any interest in advancing their careers.

So, people are always wanting more. Every once in a while, companies like yours can operate efficiently and effectively. However, if you get a bunch of collegues involved, who are motivated to take on more, get a better title, or make even more money - the system collapses. There are always employers out there that will pay more, or provide better opportunities to those motivated people.

There are two sides to every coin!
Sure the shareholders demand (and get) their side looked after.
On the other side is the worker, who perhaps like myself spent 5 years to master a skilled trade, going to nightschool and further upgrading all along.
For such a worker it is also an investment that should pay off!
That is where a union comes in, to give him a fair chance that the firm that utilizes his skills and energy, also has some obligations towards him.
Seniority comes to mind, it is simply not fair that a 60 year old man should be constantly compared to and evaluated against a man in his prime!
That worker has contributed his best energy and years, and will work well and hard til retirement unless some shareholders are so greedy that he gets fired!
Pension plans and sick-benefits are other things that non-unionized firms conveniently forget about!
I have been there, worked at 10% over union wages in a non-unionshop, only to realize that there were no benefits and no security!
A worker has his "shareholders" as well, they are his family and they demand security for the entire worklife. something the cheap outfits will not provide!

Thank God unions are on the way out, Mr. Dobbin. Collective bargaining has never been a "right". Get real!

The majority of union workers are now simply governmnet elitists - far from undeucated low-skilled labourers. They can bully the government (you and me) because the government is a soft target and they have a monopoly on supply of labour. Thankfully that's changing with contracting out. Unions are nothing more than soft terrorism.

"There are always employers out there that will pay more, or provide better opportunities to those motivated people."

Yes, and a union can provide just such an environment. You contend that we are all greedy and that communal efforts will eventually succumb to our base instincts. But motivation to work hard and contribute to the common good has it's own rewards for the individual. It's in our individual best interests to see that we all contribute to the best of our abilities. Believe me, slackers are not well thought of in this environment as they jeopardize the individual circumstances of us all.

"Humans (myself included) are greedy."

Actually, I believe that to be a common misconception. Yes, we are all motivated to achieve in that we need to provide for ourselves. It's a basic instinct. But that is not what greed is. Greed is the sociopathic aberration of that instinct. We live in a culture that exalts this aberration and contends it is the norm. We are conditioned to reward people who behave in this manner. It is the pervading notion that greed is a basic human instinct that we all exhibit and thus is an important factor in our survival. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is fast becoming evident that greed will be the single most contributing factor to our destruction as a species.

Quote:
"What a joke! The idea of bonuses provides an incentive for those who wish to work harder, and achieve their targets'" Capitalism.

That's a total misconception...bonuses work best for trained seals.They are not such a noble device as you assume. How they begin is not where they end.

Remember all those BC Lib cabinet ministers that got bonuses according to how many cuts they made to services. The more you cut, the bigger your bonus.

Remember managers being offered lock-out bonuses to work during the CBC labour dispute...that only served to drag out the dispute even longer.

What about all those CEO's that hide large masses of income behind bonuses?

Monetary bonuses are based on greed.... and largely operate by rewarding those who "behave" themselves according to the self- interests of those giving the bonuses...the power is completely one-sided.

Workers should recognize that ...

And unions should be above this kind of negotiation.

neocon. You sound like you're more of a bully than any union member I've ever worked with. After all, union members are only asking for a "working wage" not a padded executive salary. What makes you think you're so special that you deserve so much more than anybody else? Because you can bully others into believing they deserve so much less?

Unionized workers as elitists! It always makes mre laugh to hear that coming from some shill of the billionaires like the aptly named "neocon". Letrs see if you make $40 thou a year you are an elitist, if ya make $40 million a year, what are you, a member of the proletariat?

First, nobedy is more highly unionized than is the capitalist ruling class; Chambers of Commerece, Boards of Trade, Employee Councils of every description, Downtown Businessmen's Associations ad nauseum. They are unionized and the are militant in their unity, highly integrated itno and consulted by government for its opinionsa on just about every issue known to man and the economy, AND they control the purse strings of the nation. (And hold that last thought.)

And of course capital, capitalissts and the neocon supporters of capitalism hate unions. They are not, when they work well and are not subject to arbitrary/fascist law at the instigation of the capitalist class and with the co-operation of theiur controlled state, in the special or vested interest of the capitalist class . They would rather deal with the individual worker, cap in hand, shuffling and looking at the ground before them, and grateful for the crumbs from their table.Effective Unions organize the wortking class to act in concert against them, for their place in society and for a chunk of what would otherwise be an even bigger "profit pie" going to the ruling class. So one should certainly not be surprised at the lineup of such persons with names such as "Capitalism" etc, and the Neocon matched set here, being against trade unions. That is a given, this side of capitalism. They will always be there against the working class and its special social, political and economic interests-, because they invariably clash with their own ruling class interests.

The problem is, of course, that unions are currently, and have not been for awhile, working that well. Instead of leading working people forward, improving their organization, militancy, and effectiveness in advancing their economic and social interests, they have since the rise of a what has been called "Business Union" style of leadership and the Johnny Come Lately neoconservative period of capitalism, been more preoccupied with cutting "non-conflict" deals WITH capital and helping to ensure their survival and dominance. Aand since they began their long retreat and surrender of working class controlled social and economic territory to the ruling class, beginning with their humiliating surrender during the Solidarity 1983 strike, they have lost and are losing more and more ground, and being less and less effective as a working/ lower class "fighting" organization,

And the turn-around, given the clear need for it in these neo-conservative times, it does not appear anyway, is not about to come from the current leadership of the trade union movement. They are too deep into it, into the path of compromise and surrender, and failing to organize the working class into the militant, fighting capital machine and social movement it was at the time of its founding, and as is needed here again. This is a different crew, with a quite different view of the world from the early radicals who built the trade union movement and led it into those early class struggles with capital-, more preoccupied generally with their own "careers", and manipulating the workers through their next "big deal" of "compromise with capital.

Whether they know it or not, they are presiding over the step by step dissolution of a once powerful working class movement, that won for the working class of this country a level of social equality and well being that was the envy of much of the rest of the impoverished of the world, of what remains us rapidly slipping, being negotiatied and legislated away, such that it is all but an emaciated shadow of its former self.

Continued next post...

From previous post...

So there is a problem with society, and the working class losing grounds and rights, But thee "rights" are certainly not as someone suggested, "a matter of law". Fuk ruling class inspired and controlled law. Power and rights, as nobody knows better that the ruling capitalist class, rightly belongs to those with the guts and smarts to seize them. That was trues at the time of the English Civil War in the 17th Century, when the merchant class rose up against King Charles in England and ushered in the long continuing reign of capitalism, and it was demonstrated again by the organized working class that eventually arose in turn out of capitalism to challenge it and secure modern labour law, decent incomes and social services , and it is no less true today.

Power and rights, in the final analysis, at the judgement day all societies eventually face, belongs to whomever has the jam to organize for, fight and secure it.

When working people tire of this period of capitalism, they will organize and rise up against it. It's that simple; what e're the protestations of the ruling class and their apologists here-, and with, around, under or over the body of the current "business" trade unions.

Capitalist society in its functioning invariabl, by its very dynamic, generates a class war. That war ebbs and flows, but is ever present, there repressed and beneath the surface, or here breaking out in the open again, and clashing with the status quo ruling class. And it will continue that way until the problem of capitalism itself is finally resolved, and people, firstly working people face up to it..

Amen, Lynn. We are working people, not trained seals.

Fuk you neocon dipshitts.

I hate these small letters in the comment box. C'mon, Beers, fix it, or tolerate more typos and incomprehensible comments. This is nonsence-, for my old eyes. 8-DLOL

Cap:
Don't ever direct me to some union website to corroborate your opinions.

Cap:
Threats now? I will direct you to any website that shows the truth of the matter, which in indisputable regardless of source.

So why is it that government is so eager to step into labour disputes on the side of business, and never on the side of the people? Why is it that governments can so callously machine-gun the people, but never seize a factory? This de facto support from government skews all business/employee "negotiations"............

With ya, Rick.

One of the really big things workers and their unions need to get beyond is, seeing this relationship between capital and labour as something that in the long run is negotitatble. At the end of the day, once all the chickens have come home to roost, this is not a"negotiable" relationship we have with one another, but a power struggle that must end in their defeat and working class victory. And we have to keep coming back as many times as it takes, until we nail these assholes, every foot and hand to the wall.

That we even bother to negotiate with them, or have since the foundation of unions, such as they are, has more been symptomatic of our working class weakness rather than our strength, and that is a consequence, !. of the level of understanding of the main body of "the people", its weakness, and 2. the ongoing relatively weak condition of working class organization and resolve. It is that which drags this current arrangement of society and our relations with each other out, to our harm, when we rest on our laurels for the briefest period of time and forget the deadly serious nature of the relationship, which can end in only one of us being left standing and dominant. (And they absolutely "have to" have us, not maybe you or me, but us as a class. :-)

We forget it, as the current union leadership has forgotten it, and indeed the majority of the class itself, toour periul and that of majority society. It's the still lingering harm the post WW2 prosperity period did to working class politics. amd from which we are all still suffering. You give them an inch, and we've given way more ground than that since the early 80's, and their discovery that the trade union was so compromised and bought off that they didn't even have to worry about it anymore,, they will take a friggin' mile. And that is where we are right now.

We need to get back to seeing and understanding what the old labour radicals understood, that this is a war we are in, for which we must be constantly preparing and organizing ourselves. We need to update their thinking, those old radicals, no doubrt, but we also need to see that they were essentially, on the main points, about this being a class war we are in, absolutely right.

And we'll get there. For this too shall pass. Meanwhile folks are going to feel some pain, and be forced to relearn what was forgotten.

Cap is our old enemy from the past, still amongst us, because we let him live, the thinking he represents, and the class spawn out of which he arises, get away. We were too fuking nice, again.

Next time, we mustn't be nearly so nice or given to being so "negotiable".

Send 'em into history. It's past time.

WorkingMan,

You said: Except for one, that is. That particualr one has never been able to make a deal. Even their lap dogs had to legislate a contract on them.

As someone else said, you have told some untruths here and I will add to the list.

The teachers' contract does not expire until midnight on June 30. I don't know about yours, but my calendar says that it's only June 23. To the best of my knowledge, none of the other public sector unions settled a week early. And I'm not too concerned about that bribe/bonus anyway. I'd rather have a contract that I can live with until 2014 because we all know there won't be any money after 2010.

I started teaching in Sept. 1988. I think it was the first year of localized bargaining as a union. We went out on strike for 4 days to get a negotiated contract that provided for class size limits, prep time, a raise, etc. We continued with NEGOTIATED agreements (including when Ms. Bond was the Chair of our Board) until provincial bargaining was implemented. The only factor that changed with provincial bargaining is that we were attempting to negotiate with BCPSEA instead of our own School Board. So who's to blame for the breakdown in negotiations after provincial bargaining was implemented?? Surely even you can see that it wasn't the BCTF.

One additional point ... would your workers be happy with what averages out to a 1% raise a year over 13 years??? That's what teachers with more than 10 yrs. seniority have received.

Coyote:
That we even bother to negotiate with them, or have since the foundation of unions, such as they are, has more been symptomatic of our working class weakness rather than our strength

Coyote:
Just heard yesterday that raw log exports are on the rise, yet BC lost (another!) 3,000 forestry jobs..............in a "soft market" (Seems to me that a "soft market" would mean that the demand for goods decreases, not increase.....) Must be that the way to make WUF a "success" -- close down the countryside completely, and leave no one with any choice except live in some hirise slum.......

So can ANYONE tell me how BC benefits from these raw log exports? (and please don't mention the tax pittance!) I guess the 3,000 had to go, in order to pay the INCREASE in border tax that took place (while "negotiations" to end Softwood Dispute are in progress ( Thank you, Mr. Harper - all hail the savior)

The export of Our raw logs to Uncle Sam is, in my books is Criminal!

The BC Govt. is now more popular than the BCTF. Public support disapears after 10%. My, how this font is so tiny. I, as well, lobby for larger print. Someone should be able to adjust the dial up a little bit at The Tyee.
Don't we have lots of trees ?

IAMC
"My, how this font is so tiny. I, as well, lobby for larger print. Someone should be able to adjust the dial up a little bit at The Tyee.
Don't we have lots of trees ?"

Why don't you type your comments up in a text editing program. (Word, Wordpad with Windows, TextEdit with Mac) Run a spell checker on it and copy and paste your comments into the web browser window. Works for me. :-D

Quote:

"At the end of the day, once all the chickens have come home to roost, this is not a"negotiable" relationship we have with one another, but a power struggle that must end in their defeat and working class victory." Coyote

A really important and central point. It is a class war... where the rights of workers' become the axle on the wheel....as the co-option of unions by business through totally money-driven bait and bonuses is causing unions to break down and sabotage themselves. A sell-out of power for short term gain...gains that are ludicrously coming out of the workers' own pockets.

You can be sure that bonuses offered to unions would never include" bonuses of rights"..eg. enhanced benefits, hours, bargaining powers etc....because "rights" are where the true power lies....and the object is to remove power from unions by insidiously stripping these rights away.

Money is the easy bonus for the neo-cons to offer because they are using the workers own money to finance the deal...its the corporate way, after all.

As Dobbin's article makes clear if you do not first have the right to collective bargaining...then a fair wage is in complete jeopardy, anyway...eventually you will end up with whatever crumbs the powers that be decide to throw your way...those oh-so-tempting holy bonuses concentrating more and more on the hole and less and less on the doughnut...and the right to protest ?...Gone. A return to the days of slaves and owners.

Rights first, a fair wage will follow.

Any further giving up of sacred ground is surely suicidal.

Lynn:
"As Dobbin's article makes clear if you do not first have the right to collective bargaining"

I could see giving up collective bargaining, providing the companies institute profit sharing. I don't ocnsider wages to be a cost of doing business anyway. Rather, I look on wages and benefits as part of the profit structure of the company...........

RickW,

I would have to disagree with you there, Rick, because I think the conditions of employment are extremely important. Your work "life" is very much part of your human life...and it deserves protection.. a fundamentally human and democratic right that we have a right to organize and bargain collectively for.

According to Roy Adams, the author of the book Dobbin is reviewing, in countries with high rates of collective bargaining, where workers had the right to strike, there are in fact, fewer disruptions eg Scandinavia where strike rates are well below Canada's. Canada has, in fact, one of the worse records in the world now... what Adams calls "the legal hobbling of the right to strike."

My son works in computers and while there may be profit sharing, there are often long exhausting hours of work...the kind of all for one and one for all...meaning "the company."

When you have a small minority controlling the wealth and power and a vast majority that has no choice but to work for and obey them, conflict arises. This is as inevitable as night following day. Furthermore, such a society can never have a consensus or social peace. There is only one way to largely eliminate conflict within society, and that is to end the division between owner-master and worker-wage slave. Having the state run the economy (state capitalism) does not work as we have seen so plainly. It merely re-creates the division between controller and controlled. The solution (and given the almost ubiquitous nature of coops, is plain as the nose on your face) – make everyone a voting shareholder. Call it what you will, economic democracy, or a cooperative economy... Why do some people have such a problem understanding this?

Sorry, sloppy writing on my part...I should make clear for Roy Adams sake that what he calls "the legal hobbling of the right to strike" in Canada (.trying to cripple the right to strike ) has actually produced the opposite of the intended consequence....and led ironically to higher strike rates.

I think we are on the same path, Lynn, but walking from both ends. Anarcho has it right by making "employees" voting shareholders with preferential shares. In other words "employees" votes would have preference over investors votes, if the company was public.

I agree, RickW, I think we're definitely both fellow travellers on the same road. ..I'll even bring the picnic lunch. :-)

Well said, anarcho.

Good piece, anarcho. I am in complete eagreement.

As for those with the problem, there are those like Capitalism, IAMClueless and others of the same poltical set, from whom we've got to stop expecting anything else, and just set ourselves up to walk right over them. They gon't gove a shitt about us, and are in the process of aiding and abetting the Corporatist System to do us in, and turn us into those trained seals of Lynns description, tooting horns and balancing balls on our noses in exchange for ruling class bonuses.

It's a power struggle. And we need to muster greater and more powerful forces than they can. it's that simple and that difficult. That done, the New Laws will follow, to create the new normal and rights.

It's getting everyone to see that and acting together to secure it that is the trick. But we'll keep coming back to it and repeating history until folks finally get it right.. If not my generation, then this one, and if not them, some future generation.

Capitalism and its flunky minions will and are driving folks to it, for us.

Oops ... sorry capitalism. It was workingman, of course, that I was quoting. I apologize.

"It's a power struggle. And we need to muster greater and more powerful forces than they can"

yep! it is a power struggle, we have the choice to going for the revolution, or drop our divisios and all vote NDP.
Whatever problems voters have with NDP policies, can be rectified if they show up as member and elect representatives they like, and propose whatever changes they feel are needed.
The instrument is there, but instead of using it, we get sidetracked by the media and squabble instead.
So, quit bitching and start attending meetings get YOUR voice heard where it counts!

Capitalism/Maybelle says she doesn't want to be directed to a Union website. Even goes so far as to put it this way:

"Don't ever direct me to some union website to corroborate your opinions."

First of all, as you ought to know by now, Maybelle, that kind of thing just doesn't cut it. You're not in your place of work now and you can't get away with telling free people what not to do.

I've been away for a while, but it is consoling to come back here and find you are as hidebound and blind in your attitudes as ever. Stock market been giving you a bit of a kicking of late?

Union members are responsible for the demise of their unions.

Senior members tend to sell out new hires, or future hires when settling agreements. Just look at the way the pay structure has changed at chains such as Save On's and Safeways.

As well, it is always interesting to watch certain teachers cross picket lines in a saintlike manner. These people obviously don't value the investment they put in their education to become teachers, or they simply feel the need to look like they are there "for the kids" at all costs.

The BCTF pulls the same crap by stating that "Teachers Care, Kids Matter" in the same breath as asking for pay increase. They should keep the issues seperate - teacher salaries and learning conditions are not as closely related as one may think.

Besides, teachers need to determine whether or not the are indeed a true union. Police, nurses, brewery, cement, and other factory workers can get overtime. Teachers cannot, but yet they don't EVER bring up this issue. On the other side of the coin, good lawyers and doctors can find other ways to increase thier pay - teachers cannot, as the union will get in the way of pay based on merit. The government also gets in the way by forcing a standardized curriculum (which sucks).

But back to unions. Just look at the recent surveys of union members - back to supporting the BC Liberals.

The "I am all right Jack" mentality of corporations prevails in unions too, and unions members are responsible for the demise of their unions.

Boy Maybelle "Don't ever direct me to some union website to corroborate your opinions." What R U on? Damn you are one loose cannon, spoiled or God forbid people working under you..Wellcome to free speech!

"Union members are responsible for the demise of their unions."
Says Moat.

I'm not sure which side of the class divide you see yourself on, but I certainly don't entirely disagree with you. There are some imposed compromising elements, but you are largely correct-, certainly on at least one level.

Unions reflect all of the positive and negative complexity of the class out of which they arose, no doubt. And the leadership they tolerate reflects them, at least what they have allowed and tolerated as trade union policy and leadership.

Ain't nobody here more pro-labour/trade union than me. That said, I don't walk around with rose coloured glasses through which I see them. They ain't anywhere near where they need to be, in my opinion. And all of the responsibility for that doesn't reside with leadership, or just capitalist state policy and ongoing repression of trade unions, but with the weakness and lack of understanding of the people who make them up as well.

That said, I still stand with my social class and the most important organization attempt of itself that has occurred to date, across a long and trying history.

The individual capitalist is likewise requried to shoulder his share of the blame for capitalist state and economic policy, and the growing state of poverty and repression that arises there. Capitalism is fuked. For which its apologist minions fail to take rersponsibility-, ever blaming the greed of the workers, who are often just acting out their own belief in capitalism, and mimicing its ruling class-, with not nearly the power over material wealth and the state as that cream skimming priviledged class itself has. And then they feign surprise, shock and horroe. "Fuk! They are behaving just like us.*

Surprise, surprise dahlings.

When that changes you will be even more horrified, and your entire way of life in more seriouw jeopardy. (Not speaking to you Moat, but them others.) When they stop acting like little capitalists themselves, and looking at the world through their eyes, they are likelyabout to be coming to hunt you down. I'd advise you then run and hide, at least for awhile.

Coyote,

Your off she shelf drivel is dated if not obsolete. Unions are losing ground because they have not changed with the times.

Just like their lap-puppy NDP.

Capitalism is only a word. It can mean anything you want it to.
But I believe it's what the world always come to, in order to measure success.
Success, afterall, should be the driving force, in any venture.
For Coyote to say " Capitalism is fuked " is okay, if he has some other way of measuring success.

If capitalism is the way to measure success then the vast majority of the people in this world (who happen to be poor) would obviously judge it a failure. It is the driving force behind inequality, brutality and division. Not much of a success, from a democratic point of view.

Then, IAMC, you really aren’t much of a democrat, are you?

One wishes it were 'only' a word.

Coyote:

You can "rest easy" knowing that capitalism is an impossible dream without an army to back it up. After all, capitalism requires trade, and if one party doesn't want to play that game........
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/teach/ends/opening.htm

"...if he has some other way of measuring success." IAMC opines.

Well, we could start with the well being of the great mass of people, as opposed to just a small ruling elite. We could also include, as I do, the degree and level of engagement of these same folks in the ownership, management and direction of all economic and political enterprises and systems within society, as opposed again to just a handful of professional managers serving this same privileged elite.

But that is doubtles beyond your ability to relate to or comprehend, I'm sure. It's all about, "Me, me, me." with you apologists for the system folks.

Though it is nice to rattle the chains of such as yourself and "so-called" Working Man, who from even his description of himself should more accurately be thumping his chest and proclaiming to the world, as he does anyway, "Me Boss Man", and elicit the other and predictable conditioned reflex responses we get from you. Always good for a chuckle.

I'll check out the site, Rick.

I'm assuming Beers already knows that hisformatting tools at the top of the comment form here don't work.

I am scared when less than 10% of voters in the civil service unions, teachers and ICBC clerks, with billions of dollars in a pension funds could make or break the govenment. it is like Soviet Union with 10% of leaders and informers were deciding matters of life and death of not only their own country, but half of Europe, cuba, even good portion of Africa. When socialists own the banks and capitalists slave 14 hours a day to meet the payrol and pay taxes, the whole world suffers. We are going away from British Parliamentary system into oligarchy of Russia or Sudan.

And the world hasn't suffered - 80% of it at least - with Capitalists owning the banks and creating the money supply only for the things they support. You must be joking! That is like letting less than 1% of the world's population make all the decisions for the rest of us....a practice you apparently condemn. Be consistent man.

Coyote wrote:

"I'm not sure which side of the class divide you see yourself on,"

This is one of the problems that we all face. We all want to identify ourselves with the class that we hold in higher esteem. Even though most of us are closer to living in trailers than mansions, we still feel more aligned with the actions, and ultimately the beliefs of those from the (dare I say) higher class.

Same with union members when they are well paid. All the sudden taxes and union dues are no longer popular for union members who are at the "top".

Gotta buy that boat or second truck!

Now of course I am making a cheap generalization.