4 ms·
The article helpfully links to the agreement currently in force between the company and the union. The relevant clause is: > Overtime shall be voluntary excep
by 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 agoDoesn'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 agoThe 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 agoIs a clause about mandatory overtime legal, and if so is there a limit to the amount?
- defrost 4y agoThese 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.
- kelnos 4y agoIf this is enforceable, that's ridiculous. People should not be allowed to be coerced into agreeing to give up their right to decide not to work (overtime or whatever, really).
- pyrale 4y ago> everything the article describes points to the company following the agreement and the union not holding up their side of the deal. While this is true, I wonder if the union is still representative of the workers. If the union has negociated a deal without the workers' agreement and is, obviously, not able to make them respect it, that would cast a very different light on the issue.
- ejb999 4y ago>>While this is true, I wonder if the union is still representative of the workers. In my experience, people negotiating the contract rarely have the best interest of the rank-and-file employees. I have negotiated several union contracts, if we knew we would need to cut positions in the near future, all you had to do was promise a small jump in pay to the senior employees (usually the ones negotiating across the table from you) - and they then happily threw the new hires and junior people under the bus to pad their own paychecks. Worked like magic every-time. Literally tell the person negotiating the contract that they could personally get a $5K bump in pay (i.e. by offering a longevity bonus in the contract) , and they would give the green light to cut as many people as we needed to make that happen.
- lnsru 4y agoThat’s the real life. People do not want to believe, that they are only rows in HR tables. And mostly are shocked after being fired despite blood and sweat invested in an average position over few years.
- davemp 4y agoI assume this is major reason why teaching benefits/layoffs in the USA are heavily based on seniority.
- habibur 4y agoEvery article titled like "too bad to be true" are eventually found to be "the story's not what the title says". This one wasn't an exception either.
- meltyness 4y agoIt's obviously all bark. The company didn't require the employees do anything, it only demanded it. The managers demanded compliance virulently, but again, just people squirting words at each other. There's some lingering logical issues having workers who are, in their own view, not workers.
- bbarn 4y agoThe article sensationalizes the topic by putting "voluntary" in quotes. Per their contract, it's not voluntary if no one volunteers, it is mandatory, and then people are chosen by seniority and classification. So yes, people are being forced to work overtime, and the article conflating it with "voluntary" is misleading. Of course, if requiring overtime is to such a point where they are threatening legal action, wouldn't it be easier to hire more people?