on strike! Please help.

[StoneMtn]

The Criminal Code of Canada makes no provisions for kicking someone out of a private group as a consequence of a conviction. In any event, there would also have to be a conviction for The Code and its consequences to kick in, anyway.

I think that if that wasn't written in to the union's Constitution and they did kick someone out for threatening violence, they could be opening themselves up to a lawsuit; especially if the person accused of making the threat was never actually convicted of a uttering threats in Court, which would have had to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (Civil liability, of course, is a much lower standard to prove, and this would be a civil matter, but you want to avoid having to litigate this, so I think writing that into the Constitution is just sensible; minimizing risk. That way, if it ever did go to a lawsuit you would only need to prove this person uttered threats on a balance of probabilities. A criminal-standard of proving the burden would never come into play.)

Or I think I heard some guy on the street say something like that one time; or somethin'.

[AD]

isn't threatening violence considered assault?

[Birdy]

obviously whoever drafts such union constitutions see plenty reason to include a violence clause.

[Kanada Kev]

OK, so you've got a mortgage, a family, debt, etc., etc., and you get locked out of your job, or you end up on strike. Now, you've got a miniscule income from strike pay, you can't make you're mortgage payments, your credit is maxed out. Then you listen to the petty arguments between your union and your employer.

While you are doing your time on the pick line, some uninformed body drives by and tells you to get a life, get a job, stop complaining, etc. simply for the fact that they see you as a union worker.

NOW, tell me how that would make you feel? In any ordinary situation, most people can suck it up and not let it bother them. However, due to the circumstances and stresses under which work stoppages occur, it is the perfect recipe for people to make rash decisions. In no way would i ever condone violence like is being discussed here, but it's a lot easier for it to develop.

IT's easy to telly somebody to get a job when you have one, even when you don't know the whole story. Think how hard it is to hear that when you are jobless and dealing with stresses that totally suck.

obviously whoever drafts such union constitutions see plenty reason to include a violence clause.

StoneMtn explains logical reasons as to why wording must be included within their Constitution. It's a legal matter and is not there. If we relied on all members of society to act like "good people" (whatever the definition of that is) and didn't bother to anticipate possible scenarios of behaviour, we'd always be closing the barn doors after the horses had left.

[AD]

i have no real thought-out position on unions or the strike in question here, but my only personal experience with being unionized shapes my vague opinion greatly.

i worked in a factory for a summer. i made obscene amounts of cash for doing fuck all. i wanted to do work as it was boring sitting around doing little, but the lifers that worked there would do just the bare minimum, when they felt like it. the union (steelworkers) was soooo strong that the foremen / managers could barely tell people anything before the lifers would either disobey, laugh, laugh and disobey, or go sleep in the car. it was hard to believe any product got out the door, people were full time dogfuckers.

not to say that all unionized workplaces are full of dogfuckers, but in my experience people work a hell of a lot harder when there is no union steward to fall back on, no CBA governing what can happen, etc.... there are dogfuckers and hard workers in every workplace, union or not. it's just gotta be easier to do it when you have a union watching your back.

[Kanada Kev]

AD,

Yup, there are unions like that and I am not a fan of them at all. That's where they are completely doing what they set out to control ... and that's taking advantage of other people.

In my life, i've had a couple of union jobs. In high school i worked as a janitor at a public school. Great job, paid well, was safe, etc. I did see similar behaviour that you were describing, but not nearly as extreme. Everything needs that fat trimmed from time to time. Now look at the condition of the schools in Toronto ... they are a mess and much of it is due to the OVER cutting of janitorial staff.

I've worked in a unionized environment at CBC for 7 years now and have seen all sides of the bullshit. It's frustrating. I had worked so closely within the HR/IR department that I got to see how the 'other side' operates. The sun does not shine out their arses. It's a nasty GAME. It's about stubborn pig-headedness and making a cut wherever you can. If somebody wasn't watching them they'd take it all. It's pathetic and like in all relationships they have their good times and bad. Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile.

[AD]

indeed!

[bouche]

I read a protester's t-shirt once that said something like "Unions Invented the Weekend".

Well, I just found a reference to that claim.

[d_rawk]

They spelled labour wrong. (snicker)

Not to mention reductions of work-week hours to something humanly manageable, benefits, wages, etc..

AD, I've had similar experiences with very lousy unionized environments too ("Slow down kid!", "Stop working so hard ..") and once found myself on the wrong end of a picket line (not what it sounds like and don't want to ruin my image as a no-good pinko-commie -- I was working for a technology company that was *not* on strike but that was located, at the time, on GM property as a supplier having no formal affiliation with the company).

I tend to blame that sort of thing on lousy unions rather than worker organization in the general sense, much like I tend to blame specific lousy commercial behaviour on poor management rather than as a blanket indictment of commercial enterprise.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Unions represent the majority, but who represents the minority?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were all about individuals not "having" to be helped by anybody, let alone some meddlesome, organised social body resembling some mode of human governance.

I'm being silly, and I preemptively apologise; I do also see your point - there can be something of the mob mentality that prevails where people are organised and get some bit of power to do things as they'd like - but I think I'd rather that possibility for organisation be there, than see people be whacked over the head for daring to resist absurd kinds of exploitation or whatever.

Fwiw, when the college here went on strike two years back and I - as a part-timer, with no income or real union support - was forced out of work for a few weeks, and at a pretty tenuous time, all things considered - well, I'd have been just as happy going in to do my job every day, but also knew that there were other principles in play that I could get behind (the need for smaller classes, and more full-time/permanent hires, etc.). And I suppose that's a roundabout kind of way of saying that every situation is different; I guess the other side of that is the fact that there are things that people can accomplish working together than they can if they're separated out from one another.

Btw, anybody ever see the movie (or read the book by Zola), Germinal?

That shit is why unions are important things. People, left to their more crass instincts, seem to want to make slaves of one another.

[AD]

That shit is why unions are important things. People, left to their more crass instincts, seem to want to make slaves of one another.

I could have sworn you wrote that you went on strike when you were happy not to...

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

You're right - I'd have been fine sussing things out at this new place I was lucky enough to have found work at, and then maybe coming up with things that needed tweaking. I'm a little more confident now, having seen how things work, but that's neither here nor there, as far as all that strike action went.

Yet I didn't come into the college totally naive; when I heard that their jargon used to refer to students as "clients", and, believe it or not, "units", the flag went up. Business models applied to education should, I think, make people mad. And how are people to levy that frustration?

[allison]

I think that unions are exceptionally important things...in certain situations.At root unions serve to right a power inbalance(see DEM's comment about people enslaving each other) and as such are good..when they are occupied with that task.Usually that occurs when a given workforce is uneducated about personal rights,or is educated but the existing status quo(government,the corporate body, whatever) barrs exercising those rights freely.Then the collective power of the union serves the people by struggling as a cohesive effort to right the power balance.

It goes wrong when the equalization process overcorrects and the union has more power then its counterpart(the company, the government, largely its own members).Then the union becomes the problem.

The issue really isn't that some unions are good and some are bad..it's that a union as an entity CAN be either depending on circumstance...and usually from my perspective the becoming bad follows a natural progression/timeline.

What throws the union question farther into volatile territory is that it tends to make all of us want to defend the importance of our jobs relative to each other.We tend to equate the amount of money a person earns to a degree with the social need for that occupations input...even contrary to real time variables like private/public market rates, etc.

When different professions strike for more money(whatever b.s you want to spin it with , that's usually the root)it tends to make those above and below that income level gauge their job, and how hard they feel they work , against the striker.In a country like Canada...(where I would argue most unions are tipping the power balance in their favour)10 to 1 the striker is making more money than the median average already...and that pisses people off.

[d_rawk]

Hmm. I could have sworn that he wrote that he would have been otherwise happy to go in to work every day, /but/ also recognized that greater principles were at play which warranted support.

What is it that I'm missing here in order to square the portion of DEMs testimony quoted above with your response?

[Birdy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were all about individuals not "having" to be helped by anybody, let alone some meddlesome, organised social body resembling some mode of human governance.

You're on the same road as me but didn't veer to the left when you should have. People generally are always going to rely on each other and instinctively create communities in order to survive. My problem is in the organization and the levels of power it can wield. If unions existed merely for the purpose of policing exploitation and unfair work practices, i'd be all for it. But when unions demand such things like across the board pay raises, benefits packages galore, and job security, i tend to get opinionative. As long as the world is based on competitive markets, you won't find too many businessfolk who aren't concerned about their investment returns and who aren't constantly looking to save that extra dollar. It almost seems to me that the very existence of a union could entice investors to automatically explore cheaper, hassle-free labour. I can't help but think that some of these union demands are rather idealist, considering the nature of the economy. But that's just the finances of it all. Until this top-down organization changes, there does exist a group of people whose side doesn't get voiced and who are robbed of their thoughts both from their peers and their representative body. People who acknowledge that they work in a fair environment and receive fair compensation for the work they do.

[AD]

Hmm. I could have sworn that he wrote that he would have been otherwise happy to go in to work every day, /but/ also recognized that greater principles were at play which warranted support.

What is it that I'm missing here in order to square the portion of DEMs testimony quoted above with your response?

to the first part, yes. to the second part, i don't know what that means.

[Kanada Kev]

Allison, you rock. You seem to deliver many of the thoughts and ideas that i have, but in a much clearer and eloquent manner.

In a country like Canada...(where I would argue most unions are tipping the power balance in their favour)10 to 1 the striker is making more money than the median average already...and that pisses people off.

Good example. I agree. Often the spin that the media will employ can cause the piss-off factor too. It's like a political race, they'll focus on one area of the debate (which is often not the most important one) and forgo reporting on the rest of them. This over-simplifies a complicated situation, which then makes bystanders scream WTF are you complaining about?

This sort of thing is the same reason why (and I have experienced this many times) people have gotten so mad at teachers in this province. Completely unfair, IMHO. I'd love to toss in one of those bitch'n'moaners into a public school classroom for a week and experience what our teachers have to deal with on all levels (students, parents, administration, funding, materials, threats, etc.) and tell me that after 10 MONTHS of that, they don't deserve the time off.

[AD]

On a related note, my Dad and a few other teachers were pushed and shoved on a OSSTF picket line by then London Chief of Police, now OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino.

Completely agree with what you say about teachers Kev. If you replace 'teachers' with 'nurses' it fits as well, IMO.

If only the Pension Plan didn't own such a shitty hockey team.

[hamilton]

Btw, anybody ever see the movie (or read the book by Zola), Germinal?

That sh!t is why unions are important things. People, left to their more crass instincts, seem to want to make slaves of one another.

I read that - I think it was for a university course, but can't remember what class it would have fit into. Anyway, it was a powerfully moving story and an excellent read, too. Highly recommended based on the story-telling alone.

[hamilton]

Oh yeah, one other thing:

Politics forum! Gawd, it's awful when meaningful discussions happen on the main page!

[d_rawk]

That sounds fair, and true. By and large, unions tend to be - imo, of course - organized far more democratically and at least much more open to participation/inside influence than the top-down authoritarian construction that private enterprise normally allows. (Consider the role of a CEO, and in the case of a public company, the select board to which she/he is responsible. If you were comparing it on paper with a dictatorial state, it would be difficult to find significant difference in power structure. That workers ostensibly consent to this power disparity fails the sanity check for a lot of reasons, not least of which being that if an individual is given a choice between 1000 authoritarian states to which he/she could make themselves subject, their choice can't possibly be taken as tacit consent of authoritarianism itself, given the limits inherent in the choice presented..)

Unions have tended in many cases to emulate the bureaucracy and structure of the management teams to which they are meant to be a balance and a check. It can be a problem. I'm all for worker ownership, where appropriate, and also for upholding private property rights where there is both an explicit desire by the property holder to see those rights exercised and no clear countervailing contrary stake.

Pretending for a moment that I wasn't just some guy totally off his rocker who liked to stir up debate for debates sake, what would be the best way out of that? (He asks sincerely, having no answer of his own..)

This would be a good place for William S to jump in and tell us to all watch The Take. Which, in turn, could lead to a conversation about the lovely, lovely Naomi Klein.

[hamilton]

Naomi Klein has a new book out now, too - anybody read it yet?

[d_rawk]

I read a very disparaging review that made me less anxious to go out and grab it, but in fairness to Klein, the review was in the Globe's weekend Book pullout written by an individual whose previous book had been critically slammed by Klein herself.

So I suspect it was just a bit of tit for tat, though some of the criticisms dug deep.

I'll definitely read it when I get around to picking it up. I'm interested in hearing the opinions of other skanks who might have already given it a go too ..

[AD]

she is speaking on november 12 at the bronson centre, presented by octopus books. tickets available through octopus books and other places.

We are excited to announce that we have rescheduled Naomi Klein's visit to Ottawa. Tickets are available at Octopus Books, Mother Tongue Books, After Stonewall, Perfect Books, Books on Beechwood, Leishmans and Collected Works. All tickets are $5 in advance, $10 at the door. The event will open with a viewing of “The Shock Doctrine: A Short Filmâ€, created by Naomi Klein and Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men, Y tu mamá también, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban), directed by Jonás Cuarón. This will be followed by a lecture and discussion with Ms. Klein. The buzz that has been generated around her book ensures this will be an fascinating evening. To quote our friend Howard Zinn...

“Naomi Klein is an investigative reporter like no other. She roams the continents with eyes wide open and her brain operating at full speed, finding connections we never thought of, and patterns which eluded us... This is a brilliant book, one of the most important I have read in a long time.â€

[Kanada Kev]

Completely agree with what you say about teachers Kev. If you replace 'teachers' with 'nurses' it fits as well, IMO.

Yup ... so damn essential and they make such a difference in our society. We need to support them more (politics forum, i know, but dammit how can people let the gov't destroy the education and health care in this province!)

If only the Pension Plan didn't own such a shitty hockey team.

LOL ... i wish MY pension fund owned the Leafs too. Anything that can print money like MLSE is a good investment . Trust me, with my wife contributing to the pension fund we have YET to see any free tix (or even discounted ones) offered to us . IT's the only way I'd go to a game (free that is).

Edited September 24, 2007 by Guest