Unions Are To Blame For Impeding Consumer Access To Low Prices

At least Fox News believes that is true.

H/t Media Matters

A Timely Reminder From Linda McQuaig

Fanned by a corporate-dominated media, it is hardly a surprise that anti-union sentiment seems to be rampant today. Everywhere we look, there are articles decrying the 'unchecked power' of union 'bosses' and strident rallying for more 'workplace democracy' and 'right-to-work legislation,' thinly veiled euphemisms for the ultimate dismantling of unions, and standard fare from politicians like Ontario's Tim Hudak.

In today's Star, Linda McQuaig offers timely reminders of both the nature of the attacks and why unions are still vital components of our society today:

In the 19th century, workers typically toiled 10 to 16 hours a day, six or seven days a week. Unions fought to change that. In the decades that followed the Great Depression, unions won higher wages and better working conditions for their members, setting a standard with ripple effects that led to a better deal for all workers.

But in recent decades, many of the precious, hard-fought union gains — job security, workplace pensions, as well as broader social goals like public pensions and unemployment insurance — have been under fierce attack by the corporate world (where workers really are under the thumb of unelected “bosses”).

She goes on to discuss the right-wing strategy that promotes the politics of resentment, pitting workers against each other as people without the benefits of a unionized environment try to tear down those who enjoy them. The results of course, are destructive to the things that make for a passably contented life: a decent wage, leisure time, and social progress.

As is almost always the case, McQuiag offers some much-needed perspective in these difficult times.

Some Star Readers Respond To Anti-Unionism

I have to confess that my last few blog posts have felt singularly uninspired. I therefore yield to one of my favourite sources for perceptive analysis, the readers of The Toronto Star, who offer a panoply of thoughts on the dangerous anti-unionism trend evident in Canada at both the federal and provincial levels. All offer some excellent insights, which you can read here, and I am reproducing just one below:

History teaches us that when politicians wield public anger against an identifiable group, the casualty list usually includes those who allow their anger to be manipulated.

As a puppet of financially obese global investors, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney smiled broadly when he announced new immigration laws to facilitate a “new skilled trades stream” of foreign workers. Like foreign seasonal agricultural workers, these “skilled trades workers” will be grateful to leave home and family for much of the year and earn a fraction of what Canadian unionized workers in these trades currently earn. What proof confirms a shortage of electricians in Canada?

In the U.S., President Barack Obama warns that “right-to-work” bills are really politically motivated “right to work for less money” legislation, while in Ontario, Tim Hudak vomits out “right to work” rhetoric in his role as the prophet of blind hated for public sector workers.

It may take a year or two for the angry public to realize it was their hatred of teachers and other public servants that empowered federal and provincial politicians to bargain away all well-paying public and private sector jobs. As with all major renovations to the social structure of societies, the angry 99 per cent will inevitably rise up against the 1 per cent, including against those politicians who fatten their personal or business bank accounts with the profits from right-to-work legislation.

The French Revolution and the follow-up Jacobin movement illustrate the destabilizing consequences of following politicians who use hate to advance their agenda. If the angry public were to actually listen to what the teachers and public servants are saying about the governments’ assault against democratic rights, Canada and Ontario may avert the most dangerous consequences of the revolution that is already underway.

Now that the attack on electricians, welders, and other private sector workers has begun, perhaps their cries for help will be heard.

Cindy Griese, Barrie

With Some Ambivalence

In light of the unspeakable tragedy in Connecticut yesterday, in some ways it seems manifestly disrespectful to write a regular blog post today. Yet, to become paralyzed with despair over the evil in the world is not the answer either. Far better it is, in my mind, to try to confront and combat the evil that we actually have some possibility of mitigating.

Such is my feeling about the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party's exultancy over so-called right-to-work legislation now in effect in 24 U.S states, Michigan being the most recent jurisdiction to join the fold.

As reported in today's Star,

Tories are eager to follow in the footsteps of Michigan’s anti-union legislation ... and turn Ontario into a right-to-work jurisdiction where workers can opt out of joining unions and paying dues.

The move is near the top of the agenda for the Progressive Conservatives led by Tim Hudak should they be elected come the next general election.

Liberally quoting Christine Elliott, a Tory MPP and the wife of Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Richard Brennan tells us that Ms Elliott is confident that such legislation will be the answer to our economic woes since new businesses [will] pick Ontario because they will have the “flexibility” they need to get the job done without tangling with a unionized workforce.

'Flexiility' is always one of those words that sets my spider-sense atingle, since it is usually a euphemism for lower wages and working conditions. She then goes on to talk about the need for a 'nimble' workforce (spider-sense now on full alert!) so that businesses when they need to adapt to changing conditions in the workplace they have the flexibility to be able to do that.

With an apparently straight face, Ms Elliott avers that taking away the power of unions will result in higher wages “because we will have more businesses locating here. They will do well, they will be able to hire more people and pay higher wages.”

Only those who drink a certain brand of Kool Aid would accept such fatuous assertions without some research. Happily, the American site Media Matters has done the heavy-lifting on the subject, the full report of which I hope you will take some time to read. Its two most salient conclusions, supported by data, not empty rhetoric, are that right-to-work laws lead to lower wages and benefits for workers and that right-to-work" laws have little impact on employment.

As well, for those interested in the quite sordid provenance of the right-to-work movement, The Galloping Beaver has a post and a link that is most enlightening.

But I suppose Ms Elliott and her party of benighted souls are anticipating that people will simply react with Pavlovian salivation rather than reasoned discourse over her twisted version of a worker's 'paradise.'

Workers of the World Unite- You Have Nothing to Lose But Your Union Shackles!

That perhaps might have been the call in Michigan yesterday, as it joined 23 other states in enacting so called 'right-to-work-legislation' that 'liberates' workers from mandatory union membership and union dues.

Passed by a Republican-dominated House of Representatives, the new law was proudly proclaimed by Republican House Speaker Jase Bolger in the following terms:

“This is about freedom, fairness and equality” ... “These are basic American rights — rights that should unite us.”

Ah yes, those famous rights that allow workers to sell themselves to the lowest corporate bidder, a foregone conclusion in Michigan and the other 'liberated' states, a fact tacitly acknowledged with a wink and a nudge by supporters of the legislation, who say it will boost the economy by creating jobs, attract new companies to Michigan and give workers more choices for employment.

But then again, perhaps I am wrong, and that surge of expected new employment will result from corporations being attracted to states where the workers are revelling in their newly-acquired 'freedom.' After all, a happy and contented worker is a productive worker.

Lest Canadian workers feel left out, our federal overlords are laying the groundwork for similar serf-like satisfaction in this country. As reported in today's Star, Bill C-377, an alleged private member's bill about which I have previously written on this blog, is to receive the full backing of the Harper regime and is expected to be passed today in the House.

Says Labour Minister Lisa Raitt:

“Our government is going to support (the bill), with the amendments that have been brought in. It makes a lot of sense” ... “Workers want to know how their union dues are being spent.”

Of course, there are always naysayers when it comes to such liberating legislation:

Liberal interim leader Bob Rae said Bill C-377 “is an exercise in bureaucratic overkill that has nothing to do with transparency and everything to do with simply trying to punish trade union organizations.”

Rae said the bill, if passed, could be part of “the pattern in the United States” of limiting union rights. The next step, he warned, could by an attempt by the Harper government to eliminate the so-called Rand formula, under which workers in a bargaining unit must pay mandatory union dues.

Such carping criticism aside, can it be long before we are all living in a worker's paradise?

Unions Under Attack: A Star Reader Writes

In two recent posts, I discussed Bill C-377, a Harper-driven anti-union measure disguised as a private member's bill. Introduced by Conservative MPP Russ Hiebert, it is designed to require full disclosure of all union expenditures, including monies allotted for various causes; while its ostensible purpose, according to government propaganda, is to provide full transparency, a concept Mr. Harper seems only peripherally acquainted with, its real purpose is to stoke the resentments and jealousies some feel toward unions and their members. If that resentment reaches a critical mass, making union dues optional, a favorite Trojan Horse tactic of the extreme right to weaken and ultimately destroy unions, will be that much easier.

In this morning's Star, letter-writer Jenny Carter offers her insights on the bill:

Thomas Walkom talks of Russ Hiebert's private member's bill, which is, he says, ostensibly a plea for openness but actually an attack on the automatic check-off of union dues, or Rand formula.

It's a funny thing, but I, and everybody with a taxable income, also pay automatic dues, also supposed to provide services and benefits to those who pay.

Bill C-377 says the public has the right to know how unions spend their money. But the government refuses to tell the public how their tax money is spent. Even Members of Parliament seem no longer to have a right to this information, which is very strange because one of the main functions of an elected parliament has always been to oversee the way in which tax money is spent.

REAL Women may not like expenditure on “left-wing causes,” but many taxpayers may feel that it is not in their best interests to have government money spent, for example, on subsidizing fossil fuel companies, building unnecessary jails and buying attack fighter jets, while starving provincial governments of funds for health-care and essential social spending, and failing to provide public housing.

We need trade unions as a counterbalance to business. If the Rand formula is abolished, I really don't see why I, or anybody who objects to the government's lack of financial transparency and the way it spends our money, should be expected to pay taxes, especially since the tax system in this country is extremely unfair.

The proposed bill is undemocratic and unjust, and another indication that Big Brother is trying to take us over.

Jenny Carter, Peterborough

Rand Formula Under Attack

The other day I wrote a post about Bill C-377, ostensibly a private member's bill put forward by Conservative MP Russ Hiebert that would subject unions to unprecedented scrutiny. It is, in fact, a bill being guided by the Prime Minister's Office.

In his column today, The Star's Thomas Walkom says that the real target of the bill is the Rand Formula, which requires all employees in a bargaining unit that has democratically chosen a union to pay union dues.

Initiated in 1946, it was designed as a counterbalance to the power of the employer and as a means of ensuring that those receiving the advantage of union working conditions and pay could not simply opt out in order to avoid paying union dues. All in all, most would say it is balanced and desirable.

Everyone, that is, except the extreme right-wing, i.e., the Harperites, who are using this bill as a thinly disguised union-busting tactic. Writes Walkom:

On the face of it, Bill C-377 makes no sense. It argues that because workers can treat union dues as tax deductions, the general public has the right to know — in exacting detail — how unions spend their money.

Indeed, as drafted, the bill is remarkably intrusive. It would require the names and addresses of anyone who gives or receives more than $5,000 from a union. Unions would also have to categorize how and why they spent their funds.

As he goes on to point out, there are many tax breaks offered to professional organizations such as doctors and lawyers, as well as the executives paid in stock options, all of which cost the treasury countless sums. Yet none of them are being subjected to the kind of scrutiny Bill C-377 would impose on unions.

Walkom suggests the ultimate purpose behind the bill:

The unstated aim of this bill is to provide ammunition to politicians, like Ontario Tory Leader Tim Hudak, who would scrap the Rand formula and introduce U.S.-style right-to-work laws designed to sap unions.

The Conservatives’ working assumption is that once Canadians see how unions spend their money, they will be scandalized. It is another round in a sophisticated public relations war designed to portray union leaders as undemocratic pork-choppers.

Given the irrational contempt and envy much of the public feels toward unions, it seems likely that if passed, the bill will achieve its nefarious intent, and we will all literally be the poorer for it.

How The Right Deforms Our Attitudes

I have long believed it is not so much the 'genius' of the extreme right as it is their financial backing that makes them powerful propagandists. Their domination of the media and their captivation of politicians' ears give them advantages very difficult to surmount.

Read letters to the editor throughout the country and it seems that no matter where we look, the politics of envy, stoked by that right-wing power, permeates the attitudes of disadvantaged workers who look at what other workers have (good wages, benefits, and pensions)and dismiss them as unfair and unaffordable. Instead of working towards achieving those same kinds of benefits through unionization, they want to tear away what their fellow-toilers enjoy.

And while people go about this self-destructive behaviour, they give little thought to the real source of their discontent, corporate greed that sees its workers only as fungible commodities to be pitted against one another.

In her column today, Linda McQuaig offers some interesting reflections on the current landscape.

How Much Is The Lowest Price Guarantee Worth?

Despite years of repeated denials, I think there are few who doubt that Walmart is anti-union. Stories abound of the pressure the giant corporation applies anytime someone within the employee ranks tries to start a move toward union certification, including termination of the troublesome individuals and even store closures.

Because of these strongarm tactics, a group entitled Our Walmart is trying a different approach by pressing Walmart to accept a declaration of workers' rights which, in many ways sounds like a contract. Its worker groups hope to gain at least a measure of bargaining power by joining together to press the company for better wages and treatment.

However, even that has proven unacceptable to a Los Angeles store which recently fired five employees involved in organizing the workers to that end.

And of course, Walmart insists, as they always do, that the terminations had nothing to do with those activities.

Perhaps something to keep in mind in our incessant and often frantic consumer search for 'the lowest price in the land." It does come at a very real cost.

H/t Matthew Elliot

UPDATE: Apparently the anti-worker virus has spread north, this time infecting the Weston family, according to The Huffington Post.

Is This Really Negotiating?

While I have sometimes been critical of my former union, The Ontario Secondary Teachers Federation, both in this blog and my other one, I have always been a supporter and advocate of unions. I was particularly surprised and pleased that yesterday, in contrast to the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA) accepting a deal with the McGuinty government which sees the elimination of the retirement gratuity amongst other deep concessions, OSSTF's Ken Coran, along with three other union heads, refused to give up the fight.

In what would be regarded in normal times as a major concession, OSSTF has already offered a two year wage freeze, and modest cost of living salary increases in years three and four in exchange for protection of the retirement gratuity, something the McGuinty government has refused to consider.

Apparently the reason the Catholic union so blithely surrendered it is that it has been eliminated in the majority of their boards over the years. However, few understand why the gratuity is much more than a perk to teachers. Yes, it is true that we enjoy a defined benefit pension, but that is the only benefit that we take into retirement; there is no dental or health plan other than what retirees purchase for themselves. For example, mine costs over $3000 per year, and offers some coverage for drugs and dental, but with significant limitations. So essentially the gratuity, usually half a year's salary paid out upon retirement, covers that cost for about 10 years.

Now I realize even that is much more than many enjoy, but the fact is that private companies, especially those with unions, do provide health and dental benefits to its retirees, a fact often overlooked by those eager to denigrate unions and teachers.

And speaking of union-bashers, Heather Mallick, in today's Star, has what I regard as a rather simple-minded column in which she essentially argues for compromise/capitulation to McGuinty's demands, lest the recalcitrant unions bring down a fury of anti-unionism on their heads a la Tim Hudak and Wisconsin-like union-busting legislation.

While that may come, especially given the level of both public ignorance and antipathy regarding the vital role unions play in a healthy economy and political system, my attitude has and always will be the same:

Go down with a fight. There is honour in losing a battle, but little in waving the white flag.

The Source of Young Tim Hudak's Inspiration

I recently wrote a brief post on young Mr. Hudak's simple-minded and dysfunctional 'vision' for returning Ontario to its former industrial glory: gut the unions, a policy which, if ever enacted, would be disastrous for the men and women who currently enjoy workplace benefits, decent wages, and protection from arbitrary dismissal thanks to their unions.

In today's Globe, economist Jim Stanford offers some insights into the source of inspiration for the lad who would be premier, inspiration which sharply diverges from the traditional values held by Ontario's Progressive Conservatives before the advent of Hudak's hero and mentor, Mike Harris.

On Harper Ideology and Young Hudak's 'Vision'

Two reading recommendations for Monday morning:

The Star has a good editorial suggesting that the Harper government's efforts to find a buyer for the Experimental Lakes Area in Kenora is just a sham, an empty public relations exercise. As the editorial points out, the reseach facility has been making key contributions to the study of freshwater lake ecologies for 50 years but saw its funding eliminated in the omnibus budget bill, in all likelihood because it advances scientific knowledge about water management and restoration that runs counter to the Harper agenda of almost unfettered exploitation of our resources, no matter the environmental price to be paid.

My other recommendation is a letter from Salmon Lee, Mississauga, who points out the flaws in young Tim Hudak's grand scheme to destroy unions in Ontario.

As always, the Star provides ample insights into the ideologies that masquerade as informed and careful deliberations by our political 'leaders'.

My Name Is Tim - Hear Me Roar

To what I suspect is the surprise of few, young Tim Hudak, to whom I have made the occasional reference in this blog, continues to underwhelm as the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. His latest 'policy', perhaps hatched at the supper table with wife Deborah, to make Ontario more 'attractive' to employers by breaking unions, is the kind of preposterous pandering to the extreme right that one would expect from an alumnus of the despotic Mike Harris era, when he served in the latter's cabinet.

Treat yourself this Canada Day by enjoying Martin Regg-Cohn's dissection of young Tim's fatuous thinking in a column entitled Tim Hudak’s Tory vision for a low-union, low-wage Ontario.

What "Flexibility" Really Means

Reading the print version of the story I posted a link to yesterday regarding young Tim Hudak's latest attempt at formulating policy (a.k.a. union busting) got me thinking once more about how politicians misuse and debase language.

In what I guess in his world passes for bold and innovative thinking, young Tim would like union membership to no longer be mandatory and would outlaw the “forced paycheque contributions” unionized workers make to political causes.

Hudak said that “the more flexible the workplace, the greater demand there is going to be for workers.”

“If you have a flexible workplace where businesses can adjust to market conditions the more likely they’ll open up in that jurisdiction.”

I suspect the flexible workplace the callow Master Hudak has in mind would be filled with all kinds of perils for the newly enfranchised worker:

Ontario's Impending Austerity Budget

Reading my morning Star, I learned that there is wide-spread support among the public for austerity measures to reduce Ontario's deficit. I suspect that there will be a particular appetite for the following:

Hundreds of thousands of teachers, nurses and all other public employees face higher pension contributions or reduced payouts to keep their plans sustainable, the Ontario government will announce Tuesday.

Although I am a former teacher receiving one of those 'lavish pensions' that come with no benefits (I pay about $3,000 per year for supplementary health insurance), I shall not use this space to offer a defense of them, except to observe that the money for that pension comes from a hefty percentage deduction of my salary over the years, along with the government's contribution.

No, what I really want to say is that the reaction of the various public sector union leaders to this austerity program with be a telling barometer of the health of the union movement provincially and nationally.
.
Conventional wisdom is that unions in North America have been under attack for some time, and the success of that attack is clear in the erosion of union membership over the years; however, unions have to take part of the responsibility for that decline, frequently serving the members with the less-than-sterling leadership they deserve, a topic I have written about on more than one occasion.

For example, after the divisive and hateful reign of Mike Harris and his comrades came to an end in Ontario, the leadership at OSSTF, my former federation, embraced Dalton Mcguinty and his policies uncritically, and I believe it was at that point, to borrow a thought from Chris Hedges and his Death of the Liberal Class that the union, a traditional liberal institution, failed to hold true to its values, instead essentially giving its stamp of approval to everything the government did, thereby selling out to the corporate agenda.

So, in what looks to be a major budgetary attack on the public sector, how the unions respond could give a very good indication of their future health and viability.

Pension Fund Shuns Walmart

Years ago, when Maple Leaf Foods was demanding deep concessions from its workers in Burlington, Ontario, many teachers tried to get the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan to divest itself from the company. We were unsuccessful, the response being that the Plan had a fiduciary responsibility to its members to maximize earnings, so ethical considerations could not be an influence in investment decisions.

It is good to know that not all pension funds think this way. The €239bn Dutch civil servants and teachers pension fund ABP has announced that it will no longer invest in U.S. retail giant Walmart, arguing that it persists "in behaviour that runs counter to the UN Global Compact's principles in the areas of human rights, labour, anti-corruption and the environment."

One of the reasons for the divestiture is Walmart's well-known anti-union stance, coupled with tactics that punish, usually by dismissal, those who try to unionize a store, and in extreme cases, by store closures:

ABP has excluded Walmart over of its personnel policy, which "violates international directives, particularly with regard to working conditions and the opportunity for employees to unionise."

It's sad that taking a principled stand against corporations that exploit their workers makes the news because such ethical behaviour is the exception, not the rule, in investment decisions.

No Surprises Here: Harper Government Set To Undermine Unions

As reported online in the Globe and Mail today, "The Conservatives are set to take another hit at labour organizations, this time through a private member’s bill designed to force Canada’s unions to open their books to the public."

"The bill’s content is still confidential, but its title shows it will seek to change the rules governing labour organizations under the Income Tax Act, which exempts unions, along with charities and municipalities, from paying taxes. If adopted, the bill will force unions “to apply financial disclosure rules” that are already in place for charities, said a source, given the tax benefit that they receive."

Whatever the ultimate fate and intention of this private member's bill, it will keep alive the tired conservative rhetoric about union bosses and at the very least represents their continuing campaign of sowing public and union members' discontent with unions.

As well, it could mean ending unions' political activism, thereby eliminating one of the few counterweights to the corporate agenda that is so well-financed in this country through lobbyists, conservative think tanks, etc.

Most darkly, it could be a prelude to Harper introducing 'workplace democracy' legislation that would allow union members to opt out of paying dues to unions that pursue causes that individuals don't support, a favorite tactic of the right-wing in United States and an effective way to cripple or destroy unions.

Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.

American Sweatshops

Since I started subscribing to the Toronto Star, one of the big difference I've noticed from the Globe's business section is its emphasis on the human, as opposed to the corporate dimensions of companies. Today is a good example as David Olive looks at how the U.S. is becoming a sweatshop country being exploited by European companies who treat their American employees quite differently than the workers in their own countries.

Anti-Unionism in Wisconsin

Long a favorite target of the right-wing and the envious, unions and collective bargaining are under fresh assault in the state of Wisconsin. As reported at Salon.com, a bill introduced by its Republican Governor, Scott Walker, and speeding through the legislature would essentially strip public sector unions (those representing teachers, prison workers, etc.)of their collective bargaining rights, increase what they have to contribute to their pensions, and essentially make union membership optional; it would also require surviving unions to hold annual votes in order to stay organized.

It has become increasingly popular over the last few years to denigrate the notion of unions, with many of the uninformed claiming that they might have served a purpose at one time but are really unnecessary, indeed obsolete now. My answer to that has been to look at what happens in non-unionized environments, where there is no real protection against unjust dismissal, bad working conditions, or unsafe working conditions.

In additional to the ideology that drives much opposition to unions, there is the sheer envy that non-unionized workers feel. We frequently hear of the benefits enjoyed by union members that provoke howls of outrage from the non-unionized. My answer to that is, even though it can be a difficult process, these people should start a drive amongst themselves to unionize.