12 ms·

Company Tells Employees: Work ‘Voluntary’ Overtime or Go to Jail

117 points by ljf 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pianoben 4y ago
It boggles the mind that workers would give up the right to strike as part of their work agreement. Strikes are like the main tool workers have to defend themselves and their working conditions! I'm sure there must be a rational explanation, but from the outside it looks incredibly short-sighted. Is this common? Why would unions agree to that sort of concession?
- qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
  Its a normal part of a decay into a dystopian cooperate hellhole? Sign here and here if you want to eat today. There is inter-generational debtslavery on large parts of this planet, it just migrated west-wards from there. Next step: A communist party forms and a disenfranchised generation joins it.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    What's the point of a company entering a contract with a union if the union refuses to abide by the terms they agreed to? The company agreed to higher rates, better benefits, etc and gets nothing in return. It's a bad sign for anyone who might consider joining as well- all the benefits you think you get by joining a union or any sort of collective go out the window the moment it becomes inconvenient for the collective to back you. Next step: you're still disenfranchised, but you've traded the farmer for the pigs.
    - qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
      At least the neighbouring farmers will work hard, quit drinking and be nicer to their animals, for a little while till they find out the pigs pose no real threat.
- kd5bjo 4y ago
  I expect that it’s fairly normal: If the union is actively striking, or threatening to strike, an agreement that doesn’t guarantee a return to work won’t be acceptable to management. Once the agreement expires and it’s time to hammer out a new one, the whole range of labor and management bargaining tactics are in play again, including strikes and lock-outs.
- cjg_ 4y ago
  Normally these ageeements are time limited to say 1-3 years and then needs to be renegotiated, this is when union requires some certain salary increases over the next agreement period and for that promise to not strike given that the employer hold up the agreement. Should the not come to a agreement during the negotiations, strikes are an option.
- pmyteh 4y ago
  Because it's something of (potentially great) value to the employer, which can be traded for something of value to the employees. If the contract is time-limited, then you retain the leverage at the time of negotiating the next contract (though not between: that's the trade-off). I understand they're also quite normal in some, more consensual, Northern European situations when the relationship between union and employer is sufficiently consensual that the union can be confident a strike is unlikely to be needed in order to address grievances.
  - Xylakant 4y ago
    It‘s a fundamental part of any Tarifvertrag (collective bargaining contract) in Germany - as long as the contract is in force, strikes that aim to change the contract are illegal. The legal term is Friedenspflicht https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedenspflicht https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedenspflicht. Some contracts even specify that the Friedenspflicht extends beyond the contract until a first attempt at negotiations, possibly including mediation has failed.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
      It's exactly the same with Swedish kollektivavtal and fredsplikt.
      - trashtester 4y ago
        As it is in Norway. The system is set up to be collectivist, and indeed it was largely due to the labour unions and labour parties that it became like this. I suppose Canada has something similar. This kind of system implies that people are members of the group more than they are individuals, as least for some purposes. The union is allowed to make agreements on their behalf, the same way as a state may make laws on behalf of citizens. Often, this provides strength in numbers, but it may also limit bargaining power (and other freedoms) for individuals. Now, if some group other than the offial union representatives start organizing workers independently of the union, that threatens the entire model. Not only does this cause and upredictable situation for the employer, but it undermines the power of the Union itself (and in particular the bosses). This means that it's in the Union's interest if the agreements they have with the employer is legaly binding. A Union may even end up on the employers side in a conflict like this, to help identify ring leaders, bring forth secret messages that was passed to the users, etc. Now for you Americans (US version), that lean left, but still don't get this: There are primarily two types of economic systems that have been introduced by "the left" as alternatives to capitalism. One is the one described above, which is a sort of corporatism. This is the moderate version, where there is some room for individual freedom, but where some freedom is given up to unions, employers and the government (in exchange for security). This is the system that was introduced by Social Democrats in the mid 20th century, and you still find remains of it in traditional heavy industries, government employees, etc in Europe, though not to the same extent as in 1970. The last one is full socialism, where the government generally takes over ALL control.
- mcherm 4y ago
  > Is this common? Why would unions agree to that sort of concession? Yes, it is quite common. In any contract, both sides give something of value to the other. When a union contracts with an employer, the employer makes concessions like improved working conditions and increased wages. What does the union provide to the employer? Typically, the answer is that the union provides agreement not to strike as long as the employer upholds their end of the contract.
- kgermino 4y ago
  It doesn’t look like that’s what happened though. The issue is that they are under and active contract and no vote to strike was taken. Contracts have terms, saying “we wont strike for 3 years if you do x” is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and has been part of contract negotiations forever. AND based on the phrasing it sounds like they still could strike, they just need to vote first.
  - manholio 4y ago
    > “we wont strike for 3 years if you do x” is a perfectly reasonable thing Without legal protection, "you don't strike for 50 years if we hire you" will be standard legalese in any employment contract. It's the nature of a competitive market place vs a labor market where workers have no individual bargaining power: companies that abuse their workers will be most competitive, and pretty soon they are the only employers left in the market. This is of course not true for very creative long tail employees, software etc., but it could be argued that such professionals are not representative of the deep labor market; they have such high human capital that are acting as mini-capitalists, during contract negotiation they can force the employer's hand to a degree that no scaffolder or birklayer could ever hope to, so they have no practical need for the power to strike.
    - realityking 4y ago
      Except the clause is not in their employment contract but in the collective bargaining agreement their union signed.
  - RegW 4y ago
    > no vote to strike was taken. Those involved might have thought that not volunteering to work overtime isn't a strike, and so wouldn't realize that one was required. Clearly this company believes this to be incorrect but [there] must have been some room for misunderstanding. I do wonder what the overtime take up rate must have been before this. If it was less than 100%, then was it made apparent that this was illegal, or were employees left thinking that it wasn't mandatory and were on strike without realizing it. Perhaps, it was deemed acceptable for not all employees to take the overtime available. In which case, who decides which employee must work and who need not? If just one takes up the overtime, would it still be a strike?
- dangerface 4y ago
  Your employer writes the contract and they write it specifically to remove as many rights from you as possible. Thats the definition of employment you sacrifice your freedom for money so you can buy food and a roof over your head. In the UK if a contract infringes on your rights then the contract as a whole is void but most employers will still write up illegal contracts to pressure their employees. Most employees don't know what their rights are and if they do they don't know that legally they can't sign away their rights so the contract doesn't matter, but even if the employee knew all their rights its cheaper and easier to get a new job than fight it in court. In other countries like the US you can sign away your rights apparently Canada is the same, this is metal to me that some one could legal sign them selves into slavery in the USA and Canada and no one has a problem with that?
  - cassianoleal 4y ago
    > this is metal to me \m/ Well placed typo! :D I agree with you though. That a society would allow a private contract to take precedence over law is something I can't fathom.
- roenxi 4y ago
  I don't know anyone who is well paid who goes on strike. I personally would gladly trade away any ability to strike for more money (which, in effect, I do). If striking looks like an effective path it means you are part of a system that is keeping you poor. The correct response is not to sit there fighting the system. We've seen how this game plays out, there are centuries of incidents to look back on. The system will win, and great efforts by the strikers will get, at best, a few crumbs while economic realities remain the reality. Instead of playing a game they will lose, workers should adopt better strategies. Eg, grouping together and investing in capital, like what the winners of the game do. Trading away their ability to strike might be an accidental win on their part if it forces them to adopt economic strategies that work.
  - epups 4y ago
    Mate just look at labor laws and protections in the US vs Europe. Unionizing and striking is super effective for workers.
    - roenxi 4y ago
      If you try and connect those two sentences with a well laid out argument you might find it less clear than you think. There is a high correlation between people doing well and people who don't spend any time going on strike. Possibly in a world where the only difference between the US and EU was whether people went on strike that would be a workable position, but there are other differences. Quite a lot of them.
      - epups 4y ago
        There is a vast academic literature on the topic if you are truly interested. Here is just one such study [0]. The argument is in any case very simple. In countries where unions were historically powerful, especially in the post-war period, workers have collectively extracted several concessions, such as higher pay, better working hours and paid leave. In the United States itself, it is a demonstrable fact that unionized workers earn, on average, much better than nonunion ones, among other benefits [1]. [0] https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/ma.20.3585411 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/ma.20.3585... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/10/us-union-workers-report-congress https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/10/us-union-wor...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nraynaud 4y ago
  In France the right to strike is in the Constitution, so you can't waive it with a contract. But I'm a bit baffled that not going to overtime is qualified as a strike, they are doing their normal hours, they are not locking the jobsite, and the management has the opportunity to hire more people or call a temp agency, which I guess a vote for a strike would prevent. I'm not very familiar with the anglo striking procedures, here it's an individual choice, it's the other side of being a constitutional right.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >In France the right to strike is in the Constitution, so you can't waive it with a contract. I'm not an expert in French law but that's definitely not how it works in common law. Free speech might be protected by the constitution, but you can still enter into contracts that limit that right (NDA or non-disparagement) and the courts will uphold it.
  - Xylakant 4y ago
    In germany, the right to strike is in the constitution (GG, Art 9, (3) https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_9.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_9.html) and still, while a collective bargaining agreement is in place, strikes that aim at changing any aspect of that agreement are illegal - and the union/workers may be liable for damages. (Striking for aspects that are not part of the agreement in place would be legal). Collective bargaining agreements here are usually time limited or have termination clauses. I would be surprised if this was fundamentally different in France.
    - nraynaud 4y ago
      "the right to strike is practiced within the legal framework that regulates it" would be a good translation of the article of the French Constitution. I didn't say anything goes.
      - Xylakant 4y ago
        You said „you can‘t waive it in a contract“, but that‘s also not the case here. The right is waived by entering a collective bargaining agreement, which could be treated differently. There are rights in the German labor law that can‘t be waived by a mere contract, but can be waived in a collective bargaining agreement. And while I‘m not versed in Canadian law, the article indicates that the point of contention here is that this has been ruled as a strike that is illegal because a collective bargaining agreement is in place and for the duration of that agreement, strikes are not permitted. As to why this is considered a strike, the article is a bit hazy. The contract seems to say that overtime is mandatory unless there’s sufficient volunteers. The union seems to have asked the employees to not work overtime - and that could be considered a strike. They‘re not performing their work duties as contractually required, which is sort of the definition of a strike. Setting aside the question of whether such a requirement to perform overtime work is legal or not, I can imagine some similar ruling in germany. Overtime can be contractually required here (within boundaries), and collectively calling for rejecting overtime could be considered a collective action. Details obviously matter, so blanket statements here are impossible.
- SyzygistSix 4y ago
  Reading between the lines I am guessing that normally finding people to volunteer for overtime is easy; in some cases the workers are offered it by seniority first, as many blue collar workers see time and a half and holiday pay as very desirable. Hence the contractual concession. But in a heatwave it becomes a different story and now workers are noping out because it isn't worth it. And neither side may have seen this as a a possibility. They did not give up the right to strike entirely at all. And agreements like this are not uncommon for what are deemed essential services.
- selfhoster11 4y ago
  > It boggles the mind that workers would give up the right to strike as part of their work agreement What other option do they have, besides seeking employment elsewhere? (which may not even be an option, if enough companies across the industry have identical clauses in their contracts) You can't just cross out a line from an employment contract these days. Everything seems to be served via services like DocuSign, which discourages negotiation by presenting the contract as a fait accompli.
kd5bjo 4y ago
The article helpfully links to the agreement currently in force between the company and the union. The relevant clause is: > Overtime shall be voluntary except that where there are insufficient volunteers to perform the required work, then the Union and the employees agree that the Employer may require the employees, who have the skill, ability and qualifications to perform the work, to do so on the basis of reverse seniority by shift and classification. According to this, the company has the right to require overtime work to be performed, but must first offer it to volunteers. If not enough volunteers are available, then the company can require specific employees to perform the overtime work. Without any wider context or passing judgment on the wisdom of agreeing to this clause in the first place, everything the article describes points to the company following the agreement and the union not holding up their side of the deal.
- thematrixturtle 4y ago
  Doesn't striking pretty much by default mean "not holding up their side of the deal"? Or are you saying that because the deal exists, they can never strike?
  - gumby 4y ago
    The article explains this — Alberta law barred this when a collective bargaining agreement is in place, which was the case.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- im3w1l 4y ago
  Is a clause about mandatory overtime legal, and if so is there a limit to the amount?
  - defrost 4y ago
    These are two very good questons that aren't addressed in the article. Also of interest would be the conditions that led to the current situation despite a collectibe bargaining agreement being in play. I certainly wonder whether the company had pushed the requests for overtime to the point where a perhaps relatively small workforce felt themselves to be overextended beyond compensation, but this is all speculation without more detail, ideally from viewpoints on either side of the disagreement.
ivolimmen 4y ago
I expected these kind of weird stuff to come from USA not from Canada. Well: I am happy I am living in EU (Netherlands) again.
ejb999 4y ago
what an incredibly one-sided and purposefully misleading article; sadly 95% of people will just read the headline, assume it must be true and move on. Mission accomplished.
stuaxo 4y ago
How do you tell who would have taken overtime anyway Vs who is doing it collectively ?
yuriko 4y ago
This headline is incredible, are there actually existing case laws of illegal strike resulting in custodial sentences?
- dncornholio 4y ago
  The headline is a bit misleading.
anticensor 4y ago
We have a word for that: slavery.
sudhirj 4y ago
This headline seems to be a gross misrepresentation of the situation. There overtime seems to be voluntary (unless there are not enough volunteers, in which case it becomes a necessary part of employment) and by choosing to form a union for an essential service they’ve contractually agreed not to strike. Both are reasonable stipulations for utilities and civilisation life support. There seems to have been a letter circulated which calls for workers to stop volunteering at one location, which is being interpreted as a call for a strike - which I think is a reasonable interpretation. A better headline would be “Workers at essential service where strikes are not allowed attempt to find a loophole but company is not putting up with it”.
- yummybear 4y ago
  How can not choosing to do thing voluntarily be seen of as a strike, even if it is coordinated? I (personally) don't see that as a reasonable interpretation.
  - drekipus 4y ago
    "Strike action, also called labor strike, labour strike, or simply strike, is a work stoppage, caused by the mass refusal of employees to work. A strike usually takes place in response to employee grievances."
  - brabel 4y ago
    I think words sometimes lose their meaning in some places. Clearly, OP doesn't even understand that "voluntarily" doing something means that you only do it if you want to... so refusing to do it is by definition within your rights... what they seem to be trying to do is re-defining what voluntary means... unfortunately, a very common tactic these days.
    - fencepost 4y ago
      In this case it seems that 'voluntary' means 'we need some people but we're leaving it up to you which specific people take those shifts.' That doesn't seem unreasonable.
lupire 4y ago
If you are going to send labor to jail for noping out of "essential services", you damn well better send a management to jail for failing to plan for staffing essential services. Why do the lowest paid employees carry the highest responsibilities? The very idea that overtime exists for "essential" services, is insane.
- rk06 4y ago
  Worse mandatory, and probably unpaid, overtime
  - fencepost 4y ago
    Worse mandatory, and probably unpaid, overtime In a union shop? There's a good chance there's a legal minimum multiplier for any overtime pay, and a union contract might have that higher.
- itsdrewmiller 4y ago
  The "go to jail" part seems unrelated to the issue at hand - the company said if the workers also are found in contempt of court (for.. not showing up? or what?) then they could go to jail.
Caboose8685 4y ago
> Motherboard has not independently verified the letter This _should_ be a basic requirement before releasing a story. No wonder institutional trust is so low.
- justin66 4y ago
  If you think of Motherboard: Tech by Vice as an institution, you’ve got some deeper problems.
  - Caboose8685 4y ago
    It should be fairly obvious that I'm referring to the institution of journalism as a whole.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
Fradow 4y ago
What's crazy when you read the company memo and the collective bargaining agreement (both linked in the article) is how the company has done a horrible job at wording the memo, that has been picked up by the news. If I understand that right: - the company can request overtime from its workers, first by asking for volunteers - the workers collectively decided not to volunteer, as is their right - the company can force workers, according to their skills and other factors, to work overtime. There doesn't seem to be any difference in pay between voluntarily accepting overtime and being forced to work overtime (at least none that I could find in the memo or bargaining agreement, I didn't read the law on that matter) - the problem, then, seems to be that workers refuse to work overtime at all. A much more reasonable headline, if I understood the story correctly, would be, "workers refuse to work mandatory overtime, and courts ruled that to be a strike, which is forbidden by their collective bargaining agreement". That makes a lot more sense: workers don't want to work overtime because the conditions are bad and didn't think it would constitute a strike, but the courts disagreed, which seems like a reasonable ruling (IMO, it could have gone both ways before the ruling).
- anothernewdude 4y ago
  Sounds like this country needs a kick in the labour laws.
- refurb 4y ago
  I can tell right now if you were a media reporter you'd be fired on the first day. You gotta make those news stories "pop!". "Courts ruled that to be a strike"? BORING. Gotta spice that story up. "Company forces employees to work overtime or get fired". Yeah, that's more like it. That'll pull in the ad revenue we need.
  - aesh2Xa1 4y ago
    The court’s ruling is the boring part, but you imply that the company’s response is not newsworthy. Do you find these points to be reasonable from the company’s memo? - Legal action against striking employees for all damages caused by the illegal strike (by grievance or lawsuit). You could be personally liable for added production costs, penalties owing to Owner or, even the loss of the contract with our client. - Contempt of court proceedings for violation of the order entered by the court (the possibility of fines and even potentially jail) - We also expect that the Owner will be very upset with striking employees. It is possible that the Owner would consider a site ban for those involved.
ryanmarsh 4y ago
I’m a little confused. Not working overtime is striking? Is this correct or is there some other missing detail?
lesuorac 4y ago
Really would like to know what happened at the labor board meeting. The sentence about the letter is so wish-washing it almost sounds like they don't have a single copy of it (i.e. may not exist). What was written on that that would _only_ "suggest" and "claim". [1]> An anonymous letter was circulated to the Employees suggesting that Employees collectively refuse to work overtime shifts for the purpose of compelling incentives from the Employer, including improvements in compensation or working conditions, starting on Monday, August 22, 2022. [1]: http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/decisions/GE_08829.pdf http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/decisions/GE_08829.pdf

117 points by ljf 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

It boggles the mind that workers would give up the right to strike as part of their work agreement. Strikes are like the main tool workers have to defend themselves and their working conditions! I'm sure there must be a rational explanation, but from the outside it looks incredibly short-sighted. Is this common? Why would unions agree to that sort of concession?

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
Its a normal part of a decay into a dystopian cooperate hellhole? Sign here and here if you want to eat today. There is inter-generational debtslavery on large parts of this planet, it just migrated west-wards from there. Next step: A communist party forms and a disenfranchised generation joins it.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  What's the point of a company entering a contract with a union if the union refuses to abide by the terms they agreed to? The company agreed to higher rates, better benefits, etc and gets nothing in return. It's a bad sign for anyone who might consider joining as well- all the benefits you think you get by joining a union or any sort of collective go out the window the moment it becomes inconvenient for the collective to back you. Next step: you're still disenfranchised, but you've traded the farmer for the pigs.
  - qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
    At least the neighbouring farmers will work hard, quit drinking and be nicer to their animals, for a little while till they find out the pigs pose no real threat.
kd5bjo 4y ago
I expect that it’s fairly normal: If the union is actively striking, or threatening to strike, an agreement that doesn’t guarantee a return to work won’t be acceptable to management. Once the agreement expires and it’s time to hammer out a new one, the whole range of labor and management bargaining tactics are in play again, including strikes and lock-outs.
cjg_ 4y ago
Normally these ageeements are time limited to say 1-3 years and then needs to be renegotiated, this is when union requires some certain salary increases over the next agreement period and for that promise to not strike given that the employer hold up the agreement. Should the not come to a agreement during the negotiations, strikes are an option.
pmyteh 4y ago
Because it's something of (potentially great) value to the employer, which can be traded for something of value to the employees. If the contract is time-limited, then you retain the leverage at the time of negotiating the next contract (though not between: that's the trade-off). I understand they're also quite normal in some, more consensual, Northern European situations when the relationship between union and employer is sufficiently consensual that the union can be confident a strike is unlikely to be needed in order to address grievances.
- Xylakant 4y ago
  It‘s a fundamental part of any Tarifvertrag (collective bargaining contract) in Germany - as long as the contract is in force, strikes that aim to change the contract are illegal. The legal term is Friedenspflicht https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedenspflicht https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedenspflicht. Some contracts even specify that the Friedenspflicht extends beyond the contract until a first attempt at negotiations, possibly including mediation has failed.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
    It's exactly the same with Swedish kollektivavtal and fredsplikt.
    - trashtester 4y ago
      As it is in Norway. The system is set up to be collectivist, and indeed it was largely due to the labour unions and labour parties that it became like this. I suppose Canada has something similar. This kind of system implies that people are members of the group more than they are individuals, as least for some purposes. The union is allowed to make agreements on their behalf, the same way as a state may make laws on behalf of citizens. Often, this provides strength in numbers, but it may also limit bargaining power (and other freedoms) for individuals. Now, if some group other than the offial union representatives start organizing workers independently of the union, that threatens the entire model. Not only does this cause and upredictable situation for the employer, but it undermines the power of the Union itself (and in particular the bosses). This means that it's in the Union's interest if the agreements they have with the employer is legaly binding. A Union may even end up on the employers side in a conflict like this, to help identify ring leaders, bring forth secret messages that was passed to the users, etc. Now for you Americans (US version), that lean left, but still don't get this: There are primarily two types of economic systems that have been introduced by "the left" as alternatives to capitalism. One is the one described above, which is a sort of corporatism. This is the moderate version, where there is some room for individual freedom, but where some freedom is given up to unions, employers and the government (in exchange for security). This is the system that was introduced by Social Democrats in the mid 20th century, and you still find remains of it in traditional heavy industries, government employees, etc in Europe, though not to the same extent as in 1970. The last one is full socialism, where the government generally takes over ALL control.
mcherm 4y ago
> Is this common? Why would unions agree to that sort of concession? Yes, it is quite common. In any contract, both sides give something of value to the other. When a union contracts with an employer, the employer makes concessions like improved working conditions and increased wages. What does the union provide to the employer? Typically, the answer is that the union provides agreement not to strike as long as the employer upholds their end of the contract.
kgermino 4y ago
It doesn’t look like that’s what happened though. The issue is that they are under and active contract and no vote to strike was taken. Contracts have terms, saying “we wont strike for 3 years if you do x” is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and has been part of contract negotiations forever. AND based on the phrasing it sounds like they still could strike, they just need to vote first.
- manholio 4y ago
  > “we wont strike for 3 years if you do x” is a perfectly reasonable thing Without legal protection, "you don't strike for 50 years if we hire you" will be standard legalese in any employment contract. It's the nature of a competitive market place vs a labor market where workers have no individual bargaining power: companies that abuse their workers will be most competitive, and pretty soon they are the only employers left in the market. This is of course not true for very creative long tail employees, software etc., but it could be argued that such professionals are not representative of the deep labor market; they have such high human capital that are acting as mini-capitalists, during contract negotiation they can force the employer's hand to a degree that no scaffolder or birklayer could ever hope to, so they have no practical need for the power to strike.
  - realityking 4y ago
    Except the clause is not in their employment contract but in the collective bargaining agreement their union signed.
- RegW 4y ago
  > no vote to strike was taken. Those involved might have thought that not volunteering to work overtime isn't a strike, and so wouldn't realize that one was required. Clearly this company believes this to be incorrect but [there] must have been some room for misunderstanding. I do wonder what the overtime take up rate must have been before this. If it was less than 100%, then was it made apparent that this was illegal, or were employees left thinking that it wasn't mandatory and were on strike without realizing it. Perhaps, it was deemed acceptable for not all employees to take the overtime available. In which case, who decides which employee must work and who need not? If just one takes up the overtime, would it still be a strike?
dangerface 4y ago
Your employer writes the contract and they write it specifically to remove as many rights from you as possible. Thats the definition of employment you sacrifice your freedom for money so you can buy food and a roof over your head. In the UK if a contract infringes on your rights then the contract as a whole is void but most employers will still write up illegal contracts to pressure their employees. Most employees don't know what their rights are and if they do they don't know that legally they can't sign away their rights so the contract doesn't matter, but even if the employee knew all their rights its cheaper and easier to get a new job than fight it in court. In other countries like the US you can sign away your rights apparently Canada is the same, this is metal to me that some one could legal sign them selves into slavery in the USA and Canada and no one has a problem with that?
- cassianoleal 4y ago
  > this is metal to me \m/ Well placed typo! :D I agree with you though. That a society would allow a private contract to take precedence over law is something I can't fathom.
roenxi 4y ago
I don't know anyone who is well paid who goes on strike. I personally would gladly trade away any ability to strike for more money (which, in effect, I do). If striking looks like an effective path it means you are part of a system that is keeping you poor. The correct response is not to sit there fighting the system. We've seen how this game plays out, there are centuries of incidents to look back on. The system will win, and great efforts by the strikers will get, at best, a few crumbs while economic realities remain the reality. Instead of playing a game they will lose, workers should adopt better strategies. Eg, grouping together and investing in capital, like what the winners of the game do. Trading away their ability to strike might be an accidental win on their part if it forces them to adopt economic strategies that work.
- epups 4y ago
  Mate just look at labor laws and protections in the US vs Europe. Unionizing and striking is super effective for workers.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    If you try and connect those two sentences with a well laid out argument you might find it less clear than you think. There is a high correlation between people doing well and people who don't spend any time going on strike. Possibly in a world where the only difference between the US and EU was whether people went on strike that would be a workable position, but there are other differences. Quite a lot of them.
    - epups 4y ago
      There is a vast academic literature on the topic if you are truly interested. Here is just one such study [0]. The argument is in any case very simple. In countries where unions were historically powerful, especially in the post-war period, workers have collectively extracted several concessions, such as higher pay, better working hours and paid leave. In the United States itself, it is a demonstrable fact that unionized workers earn, on average, much better than nonunion ones, among other benefits [1]. [0] https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/ma.20.3585411 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/ma.20.3585... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/10/us-union-workers-report-congress https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/10/us-union-wor...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nraynaud 4y ago
In France the right to strike is in the Constitution, so you can't waive it with a contract. But I'm a bit baffled that not going to overtime is qualified as a strike, they are doing their normal hours, they are not locking the jobsite, and the management has the opportunity to hire more people or call a temp agency, which I guess a vote for a strike would prevent. I'm not very familiar with the anglo striking procedures, here it's an individual choice, it's the other side of being a constitutional right.
- gruez 4y ago
  >In France the right to strike is in the Constitution, so you can't waive it with a contract. I'm not an expert in French law but that's definitely not how it works in common law. Free speech might be protected by the constitution, but you can still enter into contracts that limit that right (NDA or non-disparagement) and the courts will uphold it.
- Xylakant 4y ago
  In germany, the right to strike is in the constitution (GG, Art 9, (3) https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_9.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_9.html) and still, while a collective bargaining agreement is in place, strikes that aim at changing any aspect of that agreement are illegal - and the union/workers may be liable for damages. (Striking for aspects that are not part of the agreement in place would be legal). Collective bargaining agreements here are usually time limited or have termination clauses. I would be surprised if this was fundamentally different in France.
  - nraynaud 4y ago
    "the right to strike is practiced within the legal framework that regulates it" would be a good translation of the article of the French Constitution. I didn't say anything goes.
    - Xylakant 4y ago
      You said „you can‘t waive it in a contract“, but that‘s also not the case here. The right is waived by entering a collective bargaining agreement, which could be treated differently. There are rights in the German labor law that can‘t be waived by a mere contract, but can be waived in a collective bargaining agreement. And while I‘m not versed in Canadian law, the article indicates that the point of contention here is that this has been ruled as a strike that is illegal because a collective bargaining agreement is in place and for the duration of that agreement, strikes are not permitted. As to why this is considered a strike, the article is a bit hazy. The contract seems to say that overtime is mandatory unless there’s sufficient volunteers. The union seems to have asked the employees to not work overtime - and that could be considered a strike. They‘re not performing their work duties as contractually required, which is sort of the definition of a strike. Setting aside the question of whether such a requirement to perform overtime work is legal or not, I can imagine some similar ruling in germany. Overtime can be contractually required here (within boundaries), and collectively calling for rejecting overtime could be considered a collective action. Details obviously matter, so blanket statements here are impossible.
SyzygistSix 4y ago
Reading between the lines I am guessing that normally finding people to volunteer for overtime is easy; in some cases the workers are offered it by seniority first, as many blue collar workers see time and a half and holiday pay as very desirable. Hence the contractual concession. But in a heatwave it becomes a different story and now workers are noping out because it isn't worth it. And neither side may have seen this as a a possibility. They did not give up the right to strike entirely at all. And agreements like this are not uncommon for what are deemed essential services.
selfhoster11 4y ago
> It boggles the mind that workers would give up the right to strike as part of their work agreement What other option do they have, besides seeking employment elsewhere? (which may not even be an option, if enough companies across the industry have identical clauses in their contracts) You can't just cross out a line from an employment contract these days. Everything seems to be served via services like DocuSign, which discourages negotiation by presenting the contract as a fait accompli.

kd5bjo 4y ago

The article helpfully links to the agreement currently in force between the company and the union. The relevant clause is: > Overtime shall be voluntary except that where there are insufficient volunteers to perform the required work, then the Union and the employees agree that the Employer may require the employees, who have the skill, ability and qualifications to perform the work, to do so on the basis of reverse seniority by shift and classification. According to this, the company has the right to require overtime work to be performed, but must first offer it to volunteers. If not enough volunteers are available, then the company can require specific employees to perform the overtime work. Without any wider context or passing judgment on the wisdom of agreeing to this clause in the first place, everything the article describes points to the company following the agreement and the union not holding up their side of the deal.

thematrixturtle 4y ago
Doesn't striking pretty much by default mean "not holding up their side of the deal"? Or are you saying that because the deal exists, they can never strike?
- gumby 4y ago
  The article explains this — Alberta law barred this when a collective bargaining agreement is in place, which was the case.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
im3w1l 4y ago
Is a clause about mandatory overtime legal, and if so is there a limit to the amount?
- defrost 4y ago
  These are two very good questons that aren't addressed in the article. Also of interest would be the conditions that led to the current situation despite a collectibe bargaining agreement being in play. I certainly wonder whether the company had pushed the requests for overtime to the point where a perhaps relatively small workforce felt themselves to be overextended beyond compensation, but this is all speculation without more detail, ideally from viewpoints on either side of the disagreement.

ivolimmen 4y ago

I expected these kind of weird stuff to come from USA not from Canada. Well: I am happy I am living in EU (Netherlands) again.

ejb999 4y ago

what an incredibly one-sided and purposefully misleading article; sadly 95% of people will just read the headline, assume it must be true and move on. Mission accomplished.

stuaxo 4y ago

How do you tell who would have taken overtime anyway Vs who is doing it collectively ?

yuriko 4y ago

This headline is incredible, are there actually existing case laws of illegal strike resulting in custodial sentences?

dncornholio 4y ago
The headline is a bit misleading.

anticensor 4y ago

We have a word for that: slavery.

sudhirj 4y ago

This headline seems to be a gross misrepresentation of the situation. There overtime seems to be voluntary (unless there are not enough volunteers, in which case it becomes a necessary part of employment) and by choosing to form a union for an essential service they’ve contractually agreed not to strike. Both are reasonable stipulations for utilities and civilisation life support. There seems to have been a letter circulated which calls for workers to stop volunteering at one location, which is being interpreted as a call for a strike - which I think is a reasonable interpretation. A better headline would be “Workers at essential service where strikes are not allowed attempt to find a loophole but company is not putting up with it”.

yummybear 4y ago
How can not choosing to do thing voluntarily be seen of as a strike, even if it is coordinated? I (personally) don't see that as a reasonable interpretation.
- drekipus 4y ago
  "Strike action, also called labor strike, labour strike, or simply strike, is a work stoppage, caused by the mass refusal of employees to work. A strike usually takes place in response to employee grievances."
- brabel 4y ago
  I think words sometimes lose their meaning in some places. Clearly, OP doesn't even understand that "voluntarily" doing something means that you only do it if you want to... so refusing to do it is by definition within your rights... what they seem to be trying to do is re-defining what voluntary means... unfortunately, a very common tactic these days.
  - fencepost 4y ago
    In this case it seems that 'voluntary' means 'we need some people but we're leaving it up to you which specific people take those shifts.' That doesn't seem unreasonable.

lupire 4y ago

If you are going to send labor to jail for noping out of "essential services", you damn well better send a management to jail for failing to plan for staffing essential services. Why do the lowest paid employees carry the highest responsibilities? The very idea that overtime exists for "essential" services, is insane.

rk06 4y ago
Worse mandatory, and probably unpaid, overtime
- fencepost 4y ago
  Worse mandatory, and probably unpaid, overtime In a union shop? There's a good chance there's a legal minimum multiplier for any overtime pay, and a union contract might have that higher.
itsdrewmiller 4y ago
The "go to jail" part seems unrelated to the issue at hand - the company said if the workers also are found in contempt of court (for.. not showing up? or what?) then they could go to jail.

Caboose8685 4y ago

> Motherboard has not independently verified the letter This _should_ be a basic requirement before releasing a story. No wonder institutional trust is so low.

justin66 4y ago
If you think of Motherboard: Tech by Vice as an institution, you’ve got some deeper problems.
- Caboose8685 4y ago
  It should be fairly obvious that I'm referring to the institution of journalism as a whole.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

Fradow 4y ago

What's crazy when you read the company memo and the collective bargaining agreement (both linked in the article) is how the company has done a horrible job at wording the memo, that has been picked up by the news. If I understand that right: - the company can request overtime from its workers, first by asking for volunteers - the workers collectively decided not to volunteer, as is their right - the company can force workers, according to their skills and other factors, to work overtime. There doesn't seem to be any difference in pay between voluntarily accepting overtime and being forced to work overtime (at least none that I could find in the memo or bargaining agreement, I didn't read the law on that matter) - the problem, then, seems to be that workers refuse to work overtime at all. A much more reasonable headline, if I understood the story correctly, would be, "workers refuse to work mandatory overtime, and courts ruled that to be a strike, which is forbidden by their collective bargaining agreement". That makes a lot more sense: workers don't want to work overtime because the conditions are bad and didn't think it would constitute a strike, but the courts disagreed, which seems like a reasonable ruling (IMO, it could have gone both ways before the ruling).

anothernewdude 4y ago
Sounds like this country needs a kick in the labour laws.
refurb 4y ago
I can tell right now if you were a media reporter you'd be fired on the first day. You gotta make those news stories "pop!". "Courts ruled that to be a strike"? BORING. Gotta spice that story up. "Company forces employees to work overtime or get fired". Yeah, that's more like it. That'll pull in the ad revenue we need.
- aesh2Xa1 4y ago
  The court’s ruling is the boring part, but you imply that the company’s response is not newsworthy. Do you find these points to be reasonable from the company’s memo? - Legal action against striking employees for all damages caused by the illegal strike (by grievance or lawsuit). You could be personally liable for added production costs, penalties owing to Owner or, even the loss of the contract with our client. - Contempt of court proceedings for violation of the order entered by the court (the possibility of fines and even potentially jail) - We also expect that the Owner will be very upset with striking employees. It is possible that the Owner would consider a site ban for those involved.

ryanmarsh 4y ago

I’m a little confused. Not working overtime is striking? Is this correct or is there some other missing detail?

lesuorac 4y ago

Really would like to know what happened at the labor board meeting. The sentence about the letter is so wish-washing it almost sounds like they don't have a single copy of it (i.e. may not exist). What was written on that that would _only_ "suggest" and "claim". [1]> An anonymous letter was circulated to the Employees suggesting that Employees collectively refuse to work overtime shifts for the purpose of compelling incentives from the Employer, including improvements in compensation or working conditions, starting on Monday, August 22, 2022. [1]: http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/decisions/GE_08829.pdf http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/decisions/GE_08829.pdf