# Would you prefer to work in a Unionized or Non Unionized work place?



## s2184 (24 Dec 2014)

Greetings & Merry X-Mas to everyone!  :christmas happy: ;D


When you work in a unionized work place, everything is mostly based on seniority + you are also mostly protected by the union.
On the other hand, in non unionized work place, everything is mostly performance/merit based + there might be lots of politics involved & not much job security. 

Which place would you rather choose to work?

My preference: Although I see lots of inefficiencies & nonsense, I prefer to work in a unionized company  

Thank you for your insights & participation.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Dec 2014)

s2184 said:
			
		

> + you are also mostly protected by the union.



No you are not.............you are represented by the Union.
If you're not worthy and Management does their job documenting that properly, then you're gone.  
Someone I worked with for the last seven years was given the opportunity to resign last month instead of a drawn out proceeding. That negotiation was the extent of her "protection".


EDIT: 5 bailifs just lost their jobs two weeks before Christmas..........protected??


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Dec 2014)

You're asking a question about unions on a military forum, an organization with with no concept of unions.  What answer do you expect to receive?  It's kind of a weird question to ask on here, don't you think?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Dec 2014)

RD,....it's in Radio Chatter.  It's not even close to what passes for 'weird' in here. :-X


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Dec 2014)

> Summary
> 
> National Picture — About one in three Canadian employees (31.5%) belonged to a union or were covered by a collective agreement in 2012.
> Gender — In 2012, slightly more female than male employees belonged to a union or were covered by a collective agreement (32.8% for women and 30.3% for men).
> ...



I'd like to work where there is an economy and hence a job...like say Alberta - unless I was old and lived in Quebec, in which case I could hope to some day get a job that was unionised..


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Dec 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> RD,....it's in Radio Chatter.  It's not even close to what passes for 'weird' in here. :-X



Whoops.... I missed that it was in Radio Chatter.  Still though, it's a weird question to ask on this forum.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Dec 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> If you're not worthy and *Management does their job documenting that properly*, then you're gone.


A lot of people don't seem to realize a lot rides on the bit in yellow.

I've worked in good non-union environments where the bosses respected and did reasonably well by the workers (and was laid off with 20 minutes notice and a box for my stuff), and I've worked in union environments where the bosses were "meh" (especially about not having tough talks with people who are underperforming and making extra work for others - see yellow above).


----------



## mariomike (24 Dec 2014)

s2184 said:
			
		

> When you work in a unionized work place, everything is mostly based on seniority + you are also mostly protected by the union.
> On the other hand, in non unionized work place, everything is mostly performance/merit based + there might be lots of politics involved & not much job security.
> 
> Which place would you rather choose to work?
> ...



The union I belonged to was formed in 1917. ( Toronto Police and Fire formed their unions in 1918. ) Membership had nothing to do with personal preference. It was a continuous condition of employment. From the day you hire on to the day you retire.

We did not have, and did not seek, the right to strike. 

Everything was seniority driven. All postings were filled by the Senior Qualified Process.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Dec 2014)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Everything was seniority driven.



...and that is negotiable.  The building I'm in now only went to that four years ago and the big jail I worked at before never had this.........management picked spots as their 'right to manage'.


----------



## mariomike (24 Dec 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...and that is negotiable.  The building I'm in now only went to that four years ago and the big jail I worked at before never had this.........management picked spots as their 'right to manage'.



Yes. Everything is negotiable. If it can't be negotiated, it goes to binding interest arbitration.

We now have a Relative Ability Process in our collective agreement. It is based on qualifications, experience, education and ability. 

But, it only applies to Level 4 Critical Care Transport Paramedics. That's only 17 positions out of a department of 1,100+ members. ( That includes Communications and Logistics etc. )

Senior Qualified Process still applies to all other ( Level 1, 2 and 3 ) Paramedic positions.


----------



## Hisoyaki (25 Dec 2014)

Unions are political groups. They are major contributors to various left-wing causes. The main union here (FTQ) backs both the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois, it is beyond corrupt and has ties both to the Rizzuto clan and the bikers. 

Even if I look at it at a strictly personal/greedy level or at the level of lowly office politics...

Documentation is a euphemism for bureaucracy.  The man on the ground will always know more then some distant HR department or political union.

There is no guarantee either that they will help your case.  When you have a union of say 8 000 or 15 000 or 40 000 members and you work in a smaller group, what are the odds that they will represent you?

Nobody, in good conscience, should support these aberrations.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Dec 2014)

Hisoyaki said:
			
		

> Unions are political groups. They are major contributors to various left-wing causes. The main union here (FTQ) backs both the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois, it is beyond corrupt and has ties both to the Rizzuto clan and the bikers.
> 
> Even if I look at it at a strictly personal/greedy level or at the level of lowly office politics...
> 
> ...



Lets just say, in not having a clue about what you ramble about, you do give credence to the 'broken clock' theory.

'Documentation is bureaucracy"?...............ya, no shit Sherlock, but those pesky things like profit, taxes, your pay cheque, all  depend on such things....


----------



## larry Strong (25 Dec 2014)

s2184 said:
			
		

> Although I see lots of inefficiencies & nonsense, I prefer to work in a unionized company



Which to me speaks volumes about your character and work ethic. If you were to come work for me, my guess is you would be shown the door well before your 90 day probation period is up........



cheers
Larry


----------



## mariomike (25 Dec 2014)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> If you were to come work for me, my guess is you would be shown the door well before your 90 day probation period is up........



Is a 90 day probationary period typical for most new hires?

The reason I ask is our probationary period has always been twelve months, and may be extended to eighteen months based on performance.


----------



## Bass ackwards (25 Dec 2014)

Mike, I've seen it as low as 30 days. Where I am now, I believe it's 60 work days. 
Mind you, I've seen new hires blow shifts while still on probation and keep their jobs -which kinda makes you wonder why even bother with a probationary period?


----------



## mariomike (25 Dec 2014)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Mike, I've seen it as low as 30 days. Where I am now, I believe it's 60 work days.
> Mind you, I've seen new hires blow shifts while still on probation and keep their jobs -which kinda makes you wonder why even bother with a probationary period?



Thanks, B-A. Probies can be fired at any time. I'm not sure if you are even entitled to know why they let you go. 

I chuckled about the yellow highlighted part because it reminded me of what someone said to me a long time ago.  That, after probation, it was almost impossible to get thrown out. That unless you became a public disgrace, that they would tolerate almost anything.  

The truth was that it was possible to get fired after probation. But, with all the treatment programmes available now, it seems to be less likely than it used to be.


----------



## cryco (25 Dec 2014)

I'm in a non-unionized env (bunch of engineers) and everything is merit based. Seniority means jack sh1t for anything but vacation time and your severance package.
You work hard you move up. You work well, you stay where you're at (grunts are necessary in all organizations).Bonuses are based on performance and so are raises.
Now for unionized env, my gf is a natal assistant at a birthing center, which is unionized. All the crap i have heard happen in there is sicking. Incompetence is irrelevant.
Seniority was all that mattered. Of course, the manager is a p***y. She couldn't discipline someone if her life depended on it.
Nonetheless, the most disgruntled, senior member of my gf group had given up on doing well after so many years, but nothing could be done. She even transferred out and had her position and rank protected for one year in case she decided to come back. wtf?
Conclusion, unions sicken me.


----------



## mariomike (25 Dec 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> EDIT: 5 bailifs just lost their jobs two weeks before Christmas..........protected??



I remember when they fired ten Supervisors in a single day. Not for cause, just to trim the budget. Because they were non-union, it was not considered a Layoff and they had no right to Recall. 

I knew each of them, and it was never clear why those ten were selected while others in management were spared.

These people were management. No "front-line" union member in the department was ever laid off during my time there. Even if they were, they would have been eventually Recalled.


----------



## s2184 (25 Dec 2014)

I agree, regardless of if it is a unionized/non-unionized work place, it is all about how the company is in overall + the characteristics, and the ability of an individual employee. There are good non-unionized companies, and bad unionized companies and vice-verse.

I notice (in average) senior employees take easy/interesting/light job tasks, and whereas the new employees/employees under probation have to do all the muscle work/most difficult/boring tasks in the work place regardless of the nature of the company, and I guess this is how it goes in  most places.


----------



## Occam (25 Dec 2014)

Releasing from the CF a little over three years ago and taking a Public Service position with DND, I had never before worked in a union.  Our particular union pays one of the highest dues in the PS, but to their credit we have had a pretty good contract to show for it.  Our union is being proactive in negotiations with Treasury Board, and countering with viable solutions to the TB desire to change the sick leave program entirely (our counter-offer included terms that TB accepted for the Nav Canada agreement recently, so we know those terms were considered reasonable).  The union will protect you in cases of unsubstantiated wrongdoing, but don't expect them to back you up if your supervisor has documented you as being a slouch.  The vast majority of people I work with are very hard working and not what some people like to stereotype as lazy public servants.  A lot of us work undocumented/unclaimed overtime simply because we're understaffed and we know the job needs to be done for the benefit of the troops on the pointy end.  I vastly prefer a unionized work place.

It also bears mentioning/reminding that CF members' pay is directly tied to that of the Public Service.  The CF benefits from the PS collective bargaining process.


----------



## mariomike (25 Dec 2014)

s2184 said:
			
		

> I notice (in average) senior employees take easy/interesting/light job tasks, and whereas the new employees/employees under probation have to do all the muscle work/most difficult/boring tasks in the work place regardless of the nature of the company, and I guess this is how it goes in  most places.



If you are in for the whole ride - that this is to be your first and last career - seniority improves your quality of life, and may help you make it to retirement. 

It allows you to not just bid for your preferred vacation time, but also for the station, schedule, and assignment that suits you best.


----------



## Tibbson (25 Dec 2014)

I grew up with a bit of a skewed perspective on Unions.  The company my dad worked for, an independent auto parts plant, was non-unionized for most of his time there and the employees had a great relationship with the company.  Wages were competitive, the company seemed to go out of it's way to provide benefits to it's employees, over and above the standard medical and dental.  They would put on an employee christmas party for everyone and each kid got rather nice gifts from Santa at the party.  Each employee was given a turkey at Christmas we well.  They would also have a family fun day each summer with free entrance to a major amusement park in our area as well as a family day in the fall just after we went back to school.  The "shop association", chosen from among the employees, would be the ones to discuss issues with the company and everyone seemed to get along.  Everyone seemed to have the best interest of the company at heart because they knew that without the company there was nothing for anyone.  

As the years went on and workers were getting laid off from Ford and GM my dad's company carried on doing well.  So much so that they hired on many of the local Ford and GM workers who had been laid off when their plants closed.  Of course these guys came from Union shops and they fought to get a union into their new workplace.  Since that time it's gone from a cooperative workplace to one that is more adversarial.  A company that had never had a strike now seems to have one, or a good threat of one, every few years.  All of the employee and employee family benefits ceased.  Its now just another place to work and no longer a 3800 member "family".  I've got cousins working there now who remember what it used to be when they were kids of workers and its nothing at all like it was.  The workers get paid well but the union seems to keep pushing for more and the plant has been under the threat of closing for a few years now.  One of these days the larger parent company is going to determine it's no longer worth it to keep the plant going and everyone will be out of a job.

Does that mean unions are a negative?  No but these things have sure shaped my opinion and lead me to feel I don't want to work in a unionized workplace.  I understand unions have their place when it comes to protecting workers and workers rights but I just also get the impression that the unions are, in many cases, a business in and of themselves.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Dec 2014)

In my personal experience of being unionized before the CAF and with side line work that is unionized, I have no real "wow" factor for being a member.  The organization seemed to take, take, take our dues and give little back in return.  I cannot say in all honesty if I was better for being a member of a union or without it's being there.  Not that I had any say in the matter one way or another.  

I suppose if I had my option, I would opt out.  I don't see the value to me as a worker in all honestly.  But that is my  :2c:


----------



## cupper (26 Dec 2014)

one problem that I have seen is the political BS that takes place within the union environment.

My previous employer was unionized at one site where there were 3 separate plants and a maintenance group all part of the bargaining unit. Each plant and the maintenance group had reps that sat at the table with management along with the national union bargaining agents.

During several contract negotiations it inevitably came down to a final agreement being hammered our, and the reps going back to their separate groups and passing on recommendations to the members. in two instances we had situations where the agreement was reached, and the reps were going back to the membership to recommend approval. However somewhere between the office and the plants, two reps backed away and advised their members to vote against. The other two recommended acceptance. When the vote was taken, the agreement was rejected since the two plants rejecting combined made up over 50% of the membership, even though they were smaller than the one plant accepting along with the maintenance group.

In both cases because of the BS that went on, they ultimately ended up settling for less than was agreed on in the previously rejected agreement, and cause major rifts between the members of the various plants.

I was fortunate in that I was on the management side of the house, so didn't have to deal with the BS, but felt bad for the union guys that I dealt with in the plant and also maintenance guys that got screwed over because the other reps felt the could push for more, or decided to play games.


----------



## larry Strong (26 Dec 2014)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Is a 90 day probationary period typical for most new hires?
> 
> The reason I ask is our probationary period has always been twelve months, and may be extended to eighteen months based on performance.



Around where I work (central Alberta), in the black iron fabricating companies as well as other industries 90 days is the norm. New hires can be released without notice, 90 days is also the norm prior to benefits kicking in.


Merry Christmas
Larry


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Dec 2014)

I've worked in both kinds of workplaces. 

The ones I liked best?

The workplaces with the best leaders, of course.


----------



## mariomike (26 Dec 2014)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Around where I work (central Alberta), in the black iron fabricating companies as well as other industries 90 days is the norm. New hires can be released without notice, 90 days is also the norm prior to benefits kicking in.
> 
> 
> Merry Christmas
> Larry



Thanks, Larry. Our benefits and seniority took effect on the date of hire. ( Good thing too, because as I mentioned, probation lasted 12-18 months. )


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Dec 2014)

I've worked in both as well; it all depended on the specific people in the union on how well it worked.  In one small shop, they prided themselves on working hard and producing quality work, so the local union steward drove the full time guys for that, and did the same for the temp workers that came in for short term production increases (that's what I was there for; they apparently would ramp up occasionally for a few days and needed a few extra hands for unskilled labour).

A steel mill I was at took the opposite approach, and protected all union members regardless of competence or work ethic.  Personally I think that's a bit myopic, as it ignores the fact that it dumps extra work on the rest of your members.  There was one guy that caused the same major accident twice in the melt shop that could have killed people and shut down production for weeks for repairs, which means millions in lost production.  Both times the union fought to get him his job back (the head guys, not the ones on the floor; they wanted him gone as no one likes tonnes of molten steel flying in their direction).  The first time he got retrained and was on a probationary period; after the second time they stuck him in a cubicle and gave him clerical work for a few years until he retired.  The same union was in at Stelco, and you can see how well that went.

I think if the union takes the approach that hiring their members is a guarantee of quality and self regulates their members, it gives them more credibility when they ask for benefit increases etc.  Otherwise I don't see any real value to having them, as too often they turn into small self contained fiefdoms that are more vocal then effective.


----------



## Tibbson (27 Dec 2014)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I think if the union takes the approach that hiring their members is a guarantee of quality and self regulates their members, it gives them more credibility when they ask for benefit increases etc.  Otherwise I don't see any real value to having them, as too often they turn into small self contained fiefdoms that are more vocal then effective.



I think that about nails it as far as I see it.  Those unions that see themselves as an extension of the businesses they work with are a great thing to have.  Those that see themselves as adversaries or a business unto themselves (how many unions just swallow up smaller work places to pad their numbers) are the ones I have no time for.


----------



## cryco (28 Dec 2014)

And those are the unions we hear the most about. 
The times when a union truly wants the business to succeed, or when the union defends an employee that has been genuinely mistreated are not often spoken of.
I've only heard, through word of mouth, the stuff that sickens me. One of my colleagues was in a unionized environment while doing a summer stint during his studies, and the stories he told us were atrocious. I didn't hear any good things from him, maybe because he didn't see or was not privy to them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Dec 2014)

In a small company definitely non-union. In a very large company, union for sure. Large organization can screw or crush people even without trying.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Dec 2014)

Trade unions and their rampant system abuse destroyed the British economy.  British Steel?  Gone.  British auto industry?  Gone.  British shipyards?  Gone.  British mining industry?  Gone.  Trade unions made more and more demands and eventually priced British labour out of the market.  My family left the UK in '68 because my dad saw no future there for us.  When we came to BC, he had to take a union job in the lumber industry, and spent as much time on strike or locked out as he did at work.  BC lumber pulp and paper?  Gone.  Canadian auto industry?  Gone.  And so it goes...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Dec 2014)

Read the history of Landrover and you realize that British Management was equally or more responsible for the demise of their industry. Landrover North America in the early 60's built a custom landrover with roll cage, bucket seats and a V8 and sent it to the UK pleading for them to build a version of it, management scoffed at the idea of a 4x4 having a V8. The entire management team of Lucas should have been burned at the stake.


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Dec 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Read the history of Landrover and you realize that British Management was equally or more responsible for the demise of their industry. Landrover North America in the early 60's built a custom landrover with roll cage, bucket seats and a V8 and sent it to the UK pleading for them to build a version of it, management scoffed at the idea of a 4x4 having a V8. The entire management team of Lucas should have been burned at the stake.



Oh, so that's what killed the whole industry in Britain, never mind then.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Dec 2014)

My point is that everyone blames the unions, but the management of British Industry never gets mentioned. They were stuck in the early 1900's and to an old boys network that excluded innovation and development.


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Dec 2014)

The unions in the UK had all the control and regularly ground industry in the country to a screeching halt. The world got tired of paying top dollar prices for our goods and shopped elsewhere.  No customers, no industry, no fat pay packets, welfare state.  QED, innit?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Dec 2014)

At the end of WWII, unless you exported 70% of your product, you did not receive any steel. the first Rover car postwar was fabric body. The Landrover was a stopgap measure that saved the UK car industry as it was the only moneymaker having to pay for all the fiscal blackholes in Leyland. N money was earmaked for product development. 

Everything I seen and read shows that while the Brits could be innovative, they struggled to bring products to production and to maintain a competitive edge through technology change. Watch some of the newsreels of British industry compared to US industry. The ironic bit is that British carmakers helped restart the Japanese car industry. Honda had a 20% stake in landrover, but left after getting screwed over in the BMW deal which was a disaster.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Dec 2014)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The unions in the UK had all the control and regularly ground industry in the country to a screeching halt. The world got tired of paying top dollar prices for our goods and shopped elsewhere.  No customers, no industry, no fat pay packets, welfare state.  QED, innit?



WRONG!  The Unions only have the power the Govt. and management can give them........


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Dec 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> WRONG!  The Unions only have the power the Govt. and management can give them........



True to an extent, but they do have the political clout via a huge voting block to influence governments heavily in their favour.


----------



## Treemoss (29 Dec 2014)

Unionized. 100% unionized. Simply based on my occupation and experience working for several private services. Out where I am now ambulance services are split between government-run/unionized and private-owned, and the differences are night and day in comparision. 


On the union side: Patient-centered care management, better equipment, employee protection, $8 more/hr, 12-hour shifts with proper OH&S management of fatigue, differential pay for night shifts, full coverage benefits, paying into a pension.
Private side: Money focused management.. the more transfers the better, sub-standard/used/OOS equipment, employees can be fired for a simple disagreement, 24hour shifts lasting 2-7(not kidding) days at a time, no fatigue management, 70% coverage.. and no pension. Oh, and overly political.


To be clear I'm not against private-owned business, I'm against it being done wrong.


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Dec 2014)

Treemoss, I think the difference in the working condition is not due to having/not having a union but more so with being a government job vs private sector job.  

Unions, IMO discourage initiative and healtly competition between workers.  People become zombies waiting for their turn to move up...


----------



## mariomike (29 Dec 2014)

Treemoss said:
			
		

> Unionized. 100% unionized. Simply based on my occupation and experience working for several private services. Out where I am now ambulance services are split between government-run/unionized and private-owned, and the differences are night and day in comparision.
> 
> 
> On the union side: Patient-centered care management, better equipment, employee protection, $8 more/hr, 12-hour shifts with proper OH&S management of fatigue, differential pay for night shifts, full coverage benefits, paying into a pension.
> ...



Our department has been unionized without interruption since Oct 22nd 1917. I've never been on strike. Items that can't be negotiated go to binding interest arbitration.

Transfers are done by private non-union companies.


----------



## Treemoss (30 Dec 2014)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Our department has been unionized without interruption since Oct 22nd 1917. I've never been on strike. Items that can't be negotiated go to binding interest arbitration.
> 
> Transfers are done by private non-union companies.




Back home I 100% agree with you, outside companies running transfers only makes complete sense to do. Out this way though......

Here the system is split into private and government-run services, both do emergency and transfers. Aside from districts or location both are doing the same job, yet one  gets something more then the other. On the flip side to this though and jumping back to my comment about more transfers = mo'money, private service owners get paid a substantial amount more for transfers than for emergencies through a government contract, which also funds the service wholly(gas included 8) ) and mandates the minimum wage for employees. The intention from my understanding was that the profits would trickle down to   employees and into operational costs, saving the government some money vs making everything government and union run. Unfortunately, many operators only honour the minimum requirements to run their service, including wage and equipment conditions in order to maximize profits. Lets just say its a sad day when your operator calls in another private service to do an emerg call so you can take misses home x.x.



You're most likely right supersonicMax, though I dont believe it's fair that the unionized portion of the sector get to negotiate for better benefits,hours, pay, etc., when they do the same job as their private counterparts who dont really have much of a say x.x. I also think that despite creating sameness, unions provide a platform(the ones ive been in atleast) to bring up problems and voice issues that need addressing. It's a really funky two-tiered-feeling system here.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Dec 2014)

One of the main problems with unions is their management has not changed. My sister was a labour lawyer and Labour adjudicator. When I heard her description of what went on in the courtroom, it often bore little relationship to what was reported. Media had an axe to grind on one side or the other. Unions are also pretty nasty to each other and not always the best place to work. Unions are required by law to support all their members equally regardless of what they think of them. In fact in one case my shop steward here said that in one case he almost dragged the member out into the alley to pound the snot out of him for being a true dirtbag. He had to play along to ensure that member got fired and could not sue the management or union.

A big issue in government is that managers did not follow the process to fire someone, giving them a chance to appeal. My management course focused heavily on the process of firing a employee and the steps required. However as we found out the HR department and Senior management buckled on us despite having a good and airtight case. during a staffing action you might have 2-3 HR advisers each giving different and often incorrect advice.


----------



## Pencil Tech (30 Dec 2014)

To respond to the OP's original question, unionised, no question. Unions can be a pain in the pants, but still.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Dec 2014)

It would be nice to live in a world were they are not needed, but human nature is what it is.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Dec 2014)

Does any of this sound familiar? Kinda like deja vu all over again.

Now those that thought it would end different than the last times this has been discussed, put up your hands.

You know the definition of insanity, right? Doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result


----------



## cupper (30 Dec 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Does any of this sound familiar? Kinda like deja vu all over again.
> 
> Now those that thought it would end different than the last times this has been discussed, put up your hands.
> 
> You know the definition of insanity, right? Doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result



I'm going to talk to my union rep and file a grievance! >


----------



## stealthylizard (30 Dec 2014)

What would I gain from being in a unionized work place?  I have medical/dental/vision benefits.  I have paid vacation.  The company matches my RRSP contributions.  I wouldn't mind a pension, but those are disappearing even in unionized work places.


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 Dec 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It would be nice to live in a world were they are not needed, but human nature is what it is.



Law and government policies should protect workers the same way unions protected workers back in the 1800s...  The role of unions today is redundant.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Dec 2014)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Law and government policies should protect workers the same way unions protected workers back in the 1800s...  The role of unions today is redundant.



That is already in place. That's why you have federal Health & Safety Inspectors and provincial counterparts who investigate and prosecute the Occupational Health & Safety Act and all it's related Regulations.

They also go into a ton of unionized places that are rife with hazards. Unions are not the experts they profess to be in regards to H&S. Nor are they the panacea for the problem.


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 Dec 2014)

That's part of it, but minimum wages and compensations for extra hours are other things union fight for and that governments have law in place to address those. 

My point is that in today's age, with the amount of government oversight in workplaces, unions are redundant and not required.  They do, however, artificially inflate salaries for trades and professions that would otherwise be subject to supply and demand.


----------



## stealthylizard (31 Dec 2014)

How quick would government start to get rid of the labour rights if unions disappeared or severely weakened to the point where they could no longer mount a challenge against the government dismantling those rights?

It already happened in the US in regards to overtime pay in 2004.  Many workers were reclassified as managers/supervisors, which then exempted them from being paid overtime.


----------



## mariomike (31 Dec 2014)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> It already happened in the US in regards to overtime pay in 2004.  Many workers were reclassified as managers/supervisors, which then exempted them from being paid overtime.



The ( non-union ) managers/supervisors where I used to work are paid overtime:
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/21/ems-senior-managers-make-huge-overtime-claims

2012
"The Toronto Sun can reveal some Toronto EMS senior management staff have claimed an almost unimaginable amount of overtime in the past 12 months alone — all paid in cash rather than taken as time in lieu."


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Dec 2014)

a lot of what a union rep does on the ground is boring stuff. I had to file a grievance for time awarded to me by the Minister of Fisheries for my CCG Rescue Specialist service in lieu of extra pay (We did not get paid to do Rescue Specialist services at first). I had that time saved so I could go on course to upgrade my ticket (CCG would not pay you to take a course and you used your own time and money to get it), when I took an acting assignment and then my position was transferred to another department, both refused to pay out, transfer or acknowledge the time given to me because it did not "fit into the contract" My boss and Regional Director were sympathetic but felt their hands were tied by Compensation branch. It was only the threat of a level 3 Grievance that resulted in the Regional Director General stepping in and offering up a solution to the issue. without the union rep  would have been screwed out of 16 12hr days because the system was not flexible enough.

Another great story. DFO ships crewed out of Victoria, worked a Monday-Friday schedule. Ship arrives in Prince Rupert on Friday, HQ informs the crew if they wish to stay on the ship over the weekend they will have to pay room and board. This happens for a few times. One friday the union flies the crew back to Victoria and the crew shows up at the dock in Victoria on Monday morning and says to HQ "Where's the ship?" Contract stated ship crewed out of Victoria. Sanity prevails and the room and board issue away from home port is dropped. 

Basically if the union and management do a good job and treat each other honourably nobody ever hears about it because it's not news. You only hear the bad and weird, good is boring.


----------



## mariomike (5 Jan 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Basically if the union and management do a good job and treat each other honourably nobody ever hears about it because it's not news. You only hear the bad and weird, good is boring.



I agree. I believe the relationship between our union and the department was mostly positive.  We never had a strike, lock-out or layoff of our job classification.

Outstanding issues not resolved through collective bargaining are settled through "mandatory tripartite interest mediation-arbitration".


----------

