Guest Blog by Brian Dell: Unions Flex Muscles (again)

The following blog was posted on http://briandell.blogspot.com/ by a guy named Brian Dell, whom I have never met.  As you can see, Brian is a like-minded blogger.  I would like to thank Brian for agreeing to be a guest blogger on PCinYYC.

 

Much of what I blog about is based on well research facts – Brian presents some of these facts in his blog.  Now that I have your attention, I hope that you enjoy the continued education …. PP

 

Brian’s blog starts here ….

 

Section 29 of the Alberta Labour Relations Code explicitly allows unions to demand collective agreements whereby “all the employees… are required to be members of a trade union.” Only employees who convince the Labour Relations Board that their “religious belief” prohibits them from being a union member are exempt from this coercion, in which case an employee could potentially get his or her union dues directed to a charity instead of the union.

 

When Edmonton McClung introduced its motion to bar unions from forcing Albertans to pay dues that are then used for political purposes, the constituency association noted that Alberta is one of the few jurisdictions in the world that denies individual employees the right to opt out of having to pay mandatory union dues that are then used for political messaging.

 

In early 2008, in the lead up to the March 3 provincial election, an outfit calling itself “Albertans for Change” but in fact run by union bosses ran a series of TV and radio attack ads paid for by forced union dues. When the Merit Contractors Association and the National Citizens’ Coalition called attention to the fact that this astroturf group was using mandatory dues for activities unrelated to the core union activities of collective bargaining and grievance administration, the Alberta Federation of Labour responded saying Merit Contractors and the NCC were “simply trying to further their union busting agenda” and cited a 1991 Supreme Court of Canada case, Lavigne v. OPSEU. However, Mr Lavigne was not a member of and not required to join a union, unlike the case in Alberta where union membership is often forced. Indeed, when the Canadian Civil Liberties Association intervened in the case to support the union position, the CCLA concluded that “Lavigne’s protection is in his right to join or not to join” a union. Remove that protection and the Lavigne case is distinguishable.

 

Alberta Union of Public Employees spokesman David Climenhaga trotted out the “but the courts say” argument on his personal blog after the Wildrose Alliance AGM earlier this year to contend that passing a particular “right to work” law would be “a pointless gesture.” The McClung members who proposed the motion here anticipated this sort of retort, however, by attaching a legal opinion solicited by Merit Contractors from a Calgary law firm.

 

I might add that, in specific response to blogger Ken Chapman’s claims that the facts cited by the motion’s supporters were “unsubstantiated” and in need of “proof,” the union practices at issue here are prohibited in New Zealand, Australia, the United States, and the 47 countries of the Council of Europe. While far left Canadian judges like Claire L’Heureux-Dubé have held that freedom of association implies no freedom to not associate, Article 20(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly affirms that negative right: “No one may be compelled to belong to an association.”

 

The European Council of Human Rights, perhaps the most famous of the Council of Europe’s bodies, ruled in 1981 by an 11 to 3 vote that a 1975 agreement between British Rail and three trade unions requiring union membership as a condition of employment violated Section 11 (freedom of association) of the European Convention on Human Rights (to which all Council members are a party). The 2006 case Sørensen & Rasmussen v. Denmark made it clear that a “closed shop” is still in violation even if it were made clear to a prospective job applicant in advance that union membership would be a condition of employment. “[T]here is little support in the Contracting States for the maintenance of closed shop agreements,” the Court added. The 2007 decision Evaldsson et al v. Sweden prohibited the use of union dues from non-members for non-bargaining (ie political) purposes, with the Court disapprovingly noting that “they had to pay the fees against their will to an organization with a political agenda.”

 

Although it is currently the case that in the United States unions can spend a member’s dues on politics, members have the right to opt out, a right that is currently denied in Alberta. Unions are currently in a panic about Republican gains in elections tomorrow because of fears that the GOP will change the obscure opt out procedure to an opt in requirement for dues union leaders want to spend on politics.

 

At this weekend’s PC Alberta AGM, union supporters tried to shout down opponents. When the vote was taken, it appeared close enough that some called for a count, a contention supported by the Edmonton Journal which described the margin as “narrow”, but the moderator dismissed a count as unnecessary and the union supporters declared victory. According to CTV, “[d]ozens of people, apparently union members, bought party memberships specifically for that vote and defeated the motion much to the dismay of many long-time party members.” The number of “Ten Minute Tories” might well have been significantly higher. In 2006, the Journal reported that a coalition of unions “apparently plans to buy as many as 10,000 Tory memberships” to get their man into the premier’s chair. As it is, the current chair of the government caucus, Robin Campbell, is a former union boss. South of the border in New Jersey, the AFL-CIO spends a quarter million per year running a “candidate school” to get their (Manchurian) candidates elected, and with considerable success given that this union school “has groomed more than 160 current officeholders.”

 

I nonetheless take some comfort in the fact a few grassroots PC members came to the AGM prepared to get their battle on against this economic phenomenon known as a labour supply monopoly or, in popular parlance, a union.

 

 

At the Wildrose Alliance AGM during the summer, there was essentially no floor battle to speak of since the unions had, in effect, pulled off an inside job. After cordial meetings with Alberta unions during the months leading up to the AGM, floor-crossing MLAs Rob Anderson and Heather Forsyth spent essentially all of their microphone time on the convention floor lobbying for closed shops and the killing of party planks like the one that protected “the democratic right to a secret ballot,” thus precluding the need for more transparently union-affiliated speakers to make the case. Party leader Danielle Smith, who had previously had her own tête à tête with AUPE’s boss (photo above at right), told media outside the convention room that the union coddling constituted a display of “sophistication.”

 

I relate the disturbing ties between the Wildrose caucus and union lobbyists in order to note that apparently every elected politician is either running scared from the unions or in their pocket. In the US, the Associated Builders and Contractors (a merit shop coalition) noted a study last year that found that union slush funds had contributed more than $1 billion to contract bidding schemes that increased the cost of construction projects for taxpayers. The equivalent slush funds in Alberta, known as MERFs or “Stab funds, were finally targeted by the Alberta government in 2008 by Bill 26, which also aimed to put a stop to the union practice of “salting” (having their people respond to hiring ads and then, after having been hired just in time to vote to unionize, walking off the job to leave the employer both short manpower and unionized). The schemes Bill 26 corrected were so outrageous the union bosses knew they could not organize popular protests against the bill, but provincial lawmakers were still so afraid of union muscle they passed the bill as the very last measure of the spring 2008 sitting and at 3:15 AM in the morning. Legislature personnel were furthermore so intimidated that security guards at the Leg were placed on high alert.

 

There are four major political parties in the province (five if you include the Alberta Party) and the leadership and/or caucus of none of them seems prepared to make an issue out of the fact that Alberta tolerates closed shops where Europeans do not, and that provincial legislation adds insult to injury by allowing unions to pile mandatory dues to be used for political lobbying on top of mandatory membership. The PC members who voted against the McClung proposal giving workers a right to opt out of having mandatory dues used to fund leftist causes are ultimately traitors when you consider the fact that in 2008 such money was used to fund a media assault on the PC Party, but “traitor” implies an allegiance that can be betrayed.

 

Albertans are entitled to a political alternative. The NDP accordingly has a good excuse for, say, not supporting the 29 Old Dutch employees whom the UFCW union and the Alberta Labour Relations Board say should be fired for refusing to pay union dues. For 38 years the UFCW and Old Dutch collective bargaining agreement provided for a voluntary dues check off. In the wake of a lengthy labour dispute, however, UFCW demanded that the dues be made mandatory.

 

Even though mandatory dues are virtually cost free to employers, Old Dutch did not agree. The obvious solution in the union’s view then became getting the government to step in and amend the Alberta Labour Code. This summer, the Stelmach government indicated that it would side against the 29 workers. Perhaps the Wildrose Alliance could have said something about this instead of going on about legal disputes in other provinces.

 

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Guest Blog by Brian Dell: Unions Flex Muscles (again)

  1. That was great. Simply hilarious. Very much like a Rick Mercer rant. But I am not familiar with the looney right derogatory phrases. What is an “astroturf group”?

    I have never met Mr. Dell either, but I have think the fact that he garnered less than 3% of the vote when he ran in 2008 election suggests that most Albertans reject his rants.

  2. David – I would think that what I had to say was more like a Rick Mercer Rant than what Mr. Dell had to say. His arguement was more detailed and thought out … even though he and I have the same principles and knowledge about the facts – ok, he probably knows more!

    Its been an elightening debate that I hope will turn into a more public discourse about the values of Canadians. My views have been categorized as extreme by some, reasonable by others, and very likely dismissed by the rest.

    But these are important discussions. Institutions that claim to represent the voice of their membership yet don’t allow free, open and democratic votes about how MANDATORY union dues are spent – or give the option of being able to opt-out of certain union activities – are not by nature free, open or democratic.

    In Ontario, the building trades hid behind the name of the “working families coalition”. I find this particularily offensive. I grew up in a working family scenario and I can tell you that any type of union organization within that working family would have been viewed as a threat to the institution of family.

    The majority of business in Canada is small business. These are hard working and determined people who want the freedom to be innovative and creative. They want, more than anything, the opportunity to succeed and they want the ability to choose their own destiny.

    This is in direct contrast with what being a member of a union is about.

    Throughout these discussions, I have better understood that being part of a union is about giving up personal control – its about central control. Someone told me that a union can only be effective if it has a monopoly over its membership – the ultimate form of control!

    My values lean towards personal and invdividual choice – towards the will of the individual . Because if every individual is able to achieve to his or her highest potential, the opportunities can trully be endless.

    I can and will write an entire blog about this topic – for now I dabble in random thought. Rest assured that my views on this topic are about principles over politics – about honesty and truth over words and rhetoric – and about the true values and will of the majority of people over the tyranny of questionable institutions.

    If unions are so open and democratic, then why wouldn’t they give their “members” the choice over how their union dues are spent?

    Am i the only one who questions mandatory pay deductions that go towards political contributions?

    PP

  3. I agree, it has been an enlightening debate. I suspect that you and I will likely never agree on this one. But there are some things we do agree on.

    I agree that unions must be democratic and must allow free, open and democratic votes about how money is to be spent.

    Where we disagree is I believe that majoritarianism must hold the day, and the will of the majority rule.

    This is the way things work in every organization that Albertans belong to, be it their local soccer association, their government, their services organizations, the Chamber of Commerce, their workplace social fund, any club. The Merit Contractors Association doesn’t give a rebate to its members if one of them disagrees with a particular stance.

    I believe that the suggestion that unions, and unions alone, should be forced to do so is illogical and wrong.

    I think you may be correct as well on the issue of absolute individual choice, and it essentially boils down to a libertarian vrs majoritarianism view.

    Also, like you, I tend to get offended when any group starts trying to use the word “family” as exclusively applying to their values. I noticed in the US the protestant religious right began doing this years ago. Having grown up in a close, Roman Catholic, liberal family, very little of their views were shared by me.

    As you say, a most interesting debate!

  4. David – polling suggests that the majority of Canadians AND union workers agree with my point of view. Why don’t you have a free, open and democratic vote (secret ballot) of your members on this topic and go with the voice of the majority?

    The question can be simple:

    “do you agree or disagree with your union forcing deductions directly from your salary to pay for partisan political activity”?

    OR

    Do you agree that you should have a right to opt-out of the portion of your union dues that goes towards partisan political activity”?

    Chambers of Commerce, Associations and other groups put questions to their members and go with the will of the Majority. However, none of these organizations take forced deducitons from people’s salaries to pay for the activities that are voted on.

    I think this is the area where you and I disagree most. You say that to pick on unions and unions alone is illogical and wrong. But unions are the only institutions that forcefully deduct wages to finance partisan political agendas.

    Don’t you see a moral issue here?

    Further, you say that unions should be open and democratic and must allow free votes on how money is spent. I agree with you – and if the majority of union members vote and agree that union money should be spent on political advocacy I totally support that. This isn’t about a unions right to participate in the political process.

    However, the next question (the first question, really) to union members needs to be “do you support financing these activities through wage deductions”.

    This is the most important question here and the one question union leaders don’t want to ask. Without asking this question, the claim that unions are democratic institutions is something I can’t begin to entertain.

    I respect that you will fight for your institution because you have strong beliefs in what it does. However, I will continue to fight for the rights of the individual worker becasue I have a moral problem with the premise behind HOW your institution finances its political activities.

    PP

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s