7 ms·

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 ca

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.
  - sudhirj 4y ago
    Workers intentionally choosing to disrupt a volunteer-based shift in a coordinated way is in no way the same thing as deciding not to volunteer for something.
    - lozenge 4y ago
      It is a decision, you just don't approve of their reasoning.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    According to the report, the agreement says that overtime isn't voluntary if there are too few volunteers to do the work. Definitions of "voluntary" are beside the point. Also, the report says part of the employer's complaint is that there was no vote taken on the action. The implication is that had the action been official, i.e. called by the union following a vote, then the threatening letter would not have been sent. It looks to me like the employer's letter was inadvisable, and perhaps should have been reviewed by the company's PR team before it went out.
- ysavir 4y ago
  I think the problem is that some, or even many, would have volunteered if not for the circulated letter. By collectively influencing each others' choices, rather than letting people choose individually without consideration from the union, the court ruled that this is essentially a union strike, especially since it had a purpose of trying to get benefits from the employer. And that could have been fine, but if I understand the article correctly, the problem is that there wasn't a vote on this action within the union. If it would have been voted on and formally taken as a union action, they would have been acting legally. But without the formal vote, it is an illegal strike according to the region's labor laws.
  - mrkstu 4y ago
    I think that is mostly correct, but the union is also prohibited from striking until such time as the contract expires, so in this instance it doesn't matter if its a 'wildcat' action or not, its prohibited under their current agreement.
mabbo 4y ago
> which calls for workers to stop volunteering at one location, which is being interpreted as a call for a strike No, this is called "working to rule". You don't do anything more than your contract stipulates you must. What I suspect is happening is that the company has to pay more, or it somehow is not in their interest, when it's mandatory rather than voluntary overtime, so they're threatening people for not volunteering.
- refurb 4y ago
  No, read the details. Their collective agreement has a process for requiring overtime if no volunteers. The union is saying "don't volunteer" so the courts are saying "ok, that's a strike since you aren't following the collective agreement".
  - fencepost 4y ago
    The union is saying "don't volunteer" so the courts are saying "ok, that's a strike since you aren't following the collective agreement". It's not clear from this that the union is saying any such thing. Someone is saying not to volunteer but it's not clear who or why.
    - mrkstu 4y ago
      Someone did and then immediately after workers stopped accepting overtimes shifts at all. It's obviously a collective action at that point.
      - fencepost 4y ago
        Right, the contention brought to the labor board was that it was a collective action that went against the contract. It's not clear that the union as an entity was involved in that collective action. Edit: expanding a bit, laws around collective bargaining include elements around not having to deal with multiple entities - if a union is representing workers, it's THE entity representing workers. If workers have a problem with the union they need to handle that internally, but they don't get to say 'the second shift guys decided they want to negotiate separately, so now you have to go negotiate with them as well.'
benj111 4y ago
It's called 'work to rule'. It isn't refusing to work, it's refusing to do above that which is contractually required.
- sudhirj 4y ago
  Absolutely. Think the point here is that someone went around telling everyone else not to volunteer at a certain time, which is a different thing altogether.
  - benj111 4y ago
    No it isn't. In the UK the police and various other industries can't strike. They can work to rule though. Are you on strike when you go home from work at the end of the day? Or are you just going home after completing your contractually required hours?
medo-bear 4y ago
i think you are being very liberal about designating this as "essential service"
- sudhirj 4y ago
  Possibly, but the essential service classification is not essential for the point to still stand. Someone thought it was essential enough to negotiate a no-strike agreement, and union thought it was essential enough to agree.
sudhirj 4y ago
Regarding the “work to rule” points, that isn’t being disputed though, is it? The dispute is that choices are being made as a result of a coordinated action, which implies a strike. “Workers who don’t volunteer are being threatened with jail” is not the story, and is incomplete. “workers are jeopardising voluntary work schedules in a coordinated action” is the story. The debate should be around whether that constitutes a strike.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  A strike would be refuse to work completely, refusing voluntary shifts is NOT a strike, even if "coordinated"
  - dncornholio 4y ago
    Depends, if you signed a contract that mentions doing voluntary shifts, but then collectively say no, I think it is.
    - anothernewdude 4y ago
      Then you think poorly. That isn't voluntary.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      Did they collectively say no overtime, or did they collectively say "We are going to hold you to the terms of the contract and force you to schedule mandatory overtime as the terms of the contract state"
phpisthebest 4y ago
>There overtime seems to be voluntary (unless there are not enough volunteers, in which case it becomes a necessary part of employment) So this is akin to a mugger saying "Give me your money voluntarily, or I will force you with his gun" Sorry but "Voluntary or else" is not Voluntary
- fencepost 4y ago
  slow clap nice attempt at escalation. 'Voluntary' in this case seems to be a way of allowing the affected workers to make the decision of who's going to be working rather than management choosing. Ideally this avoids having management assign Bob (whose daughter has a dance recital he'll miss) instead of George (who's saving for Stanley Cup tickets) so the staff who want overtime get to choose to have overtime. I think there's a word for that, it's right at the tip of my tongue.
denton-scratch 4y ago
I agree the headline is misleading. > by choosing to form a union for an essential service they’ve contractually agreed not to strike. Putting up scaffolding for an oil-drilling company isn't an "essential service". The agreement not to strike is in the collective bargaining agreement their union negotiated for them. First you form a union; then you can sign up for collective bargaining. I don't know how "strike" is defined in Canada; but declining to do overtime in the UK would be referred to as a work-to-rule. I don't know the terms of the collective bargaining agreement; maybe it mentions witholding labour, rather than strikes. At any rate, it seems to be wildcat action, and I imagine it will undermine the union's negotiating position. If you take wildcat industrial action, you can't expect the union to stand up for you when the employer comes after you with lawyers.
anothernewdude 4y ago
During a heatwave. Seems dystopian. Striking seems very justified, agreement or no.
- SyzygistSix 4y ago
  I think that is the crux of the matter. 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 workers are noping out because it isn't worth it. And neither side may have seen this as a a possibility when the contract was signed,as it may have never been an issue before.

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.
- sudhirj 4y ago
  Workers intentionally choosing to disrupt a volunteer-based shift in a coordinated way is in no way the same thing as deciding not to volunteer for something.
  - lozenge 4y ago
    It is a decision, you just don't approve of their reasoning.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  According to the report, the agreement says that overtime isn't voluntary if there are too few volunteers to do the work. Definitions of "voluntary" are beside the point. Also, the report says part of the employer's complaint is that there was no vote taken on the action. The implication is that had the action been official, i.e. called by the union following a vote, then the threatening letter would not have been sent. It looks to me like the employer's letter was inadvisable, and perhaps should have been reviewed by the company's PR team before it went out.
ysavir 4y ago
I think the problem is that some, or even many, would have volunteered if not for the circulated letter. By collectively influencing each others' choices, rather than letting people choose individually without consideration from the union, the court ruled that this is essentially a union strike, especially since it had a purpose of trying to get benefits from the employer. And that could have been fine, but if I understand the article correctly, the problem is that there wasn't a vote on this action within the union. If it would have been voted on and formally taken as a union action, they would have been acting legally. But without the formal vote, it is an illegal strike according to the region's labor laws.
- mrkstu 4y ago
  I think that is mostly correct, but the union is also prohibited from striking until such time as the contract expires, so in this instance it doesn't matter if its a 'wildcat' action or not, its prohibited under their current agreement.

mabbo 4y ago

> which calls for workers to stop volunteering at one location, which is being interpreted as a call for a strike No, this is called "working to rule". You don't do anything more than your contract stipulates you must. What I suspect is happening is that the company has to pay more, or it somehow is not in their interest, when it's mandatory rather than voluntary overtime, so they're threatening people for not volunteering.

refurb 4y ago
No, read the details. Their collective agreement has a process for requiring overtime if no volunteers. The union is saying "don't volunteer" so the courts are saying "ok, that's a strike since you aren't following the collective agreement".
- fencepost 4y ago
  The union is saying "don't volunteer" so the courts are saying "ok, that's a strike since you aren't following the collective agreement". It's not clear from this that the union is saying any such thing. Someone is saying not to volunteer but it's not clear who or why.
  - mrkstu 4y ago
    Someone did and then immediately after workers stopped accepting overtimes shifts at all. It's obviously a collective action at that point.
    - fencepost 4y ago
      Right, the contention brought to the labor board was that it was a collective action that went against the contract. It's not clear that the union as an entity was involved in that collective action. Edit: expanding a bit, laws around collective bargaining include elements around not having to deal with multiple entities - if a union is representing workers, it's THE entity representing workers. If workers have a problem with the union they need to handle that internally, but they don't get to say 'the second shift guys decided they want to negotiate separately, so now you have to go negotiate with them as well.'

benj111 4y ago

It's called 'work to rule'. It isn't refusing to work, it's refusing to do above that which is contractually required.

sudhirj 4y ago
Absolutely. Think the point here is that someone went around telling everyone else not to volunteer at a certain time, which is a different thing altogether.
- benj111 4y ago
  No it isn't. In the UK the police and various other industries can't strike. They can work to rule though. Are you on strike when you go home from work at the end of the day? Or are you just going home after completing your contractually required hours?

medo-bear 4y ago

i think you are being very liberal about designating this as "essential service"

sudhirj 4y ago
Possibly, but the essential service classification is not essential for the point to still stand. Someone thought it was essential enough to negotiate a no-strike agreement, and union thought it was essential enough to agree.

sudhirj 4y ago

Regarding the “work to rule” points, that isn’t being disputed though, is it? The dispute is that choices are being made as a result of a coordinated action, which implies a strike. “Workers who don’t volunteer are being threatened with jail” is not the story, and is incomplete. “workers are jeopardising voluntary work schedules in a coordinated action” is the story. The debate should be around whether that constitutes a strike.

phpisthebest 4y ago
A strike would be refuse to work completely, refusing voluntary shifts is NOT a strike, even if "coordinated"
- dncornholio 4y ago
  Depends, if you signed a contract that mentions doing voluntary shifts, but then collectively say no, I think it is.
  - anothernewdude 4y ago
    Then you think poorly. That isn't voluntary.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    Did they collectively say no overtime, or did they collectively say "We are going to hold you to the terms of the contract and force you to schedule mandatory overtime as the terms of the contract state"

phpisthebest 4y ago

>There overtime seems to be voluntary (unless there are not enough volunteers, in which case it becomes a necessary part of employment) So this is akin to a mugger saying "Give me your money voluntarily, or I will force you with his gun" Sorry but "Voluntary or else" is not Voluntary

fencepost 4y ago
slow clap nice attempt at escalation. 'Voluntary' in this case seems to be a way of allowing the affected workers to make the decision of who's going to be working rather than management choosing. Ideally this avoids having management assign Bob (whose daughter has a dance recital he'll miss) instead of George (who's saving for Stanley Cup tickets) so the staff who want overtime get to choose to have overtime. I think there's a word for that, it's right at the tip of my tongue.

denton-scratch 4y ago

I agree the headline is misleading. > by choosing to form a union for an essential service they’ve contractually agreed not to strike. Putting up scaffolding for an oil-drilling company isn't an "essential service". The agreement not to strike is in the collective bargaining agreement their union negotiated for them. First you form a union; then you can sign up for collective bargaining. I don't know how "strike" is defined in Canada; but declining to do overtime in the UK would be referred to as a work-to-rule. I don't know the terms of the collective bargaining agreement; maybe it mentions witholding labour, rather than strikes. At any rate, it seems to be wildcat action, and I imagine it will undermine the union's negotiating position. If you take wildcat industrial action, you can't expect the union to stand up for you when the employer comes after you with lawyers.

anothernewdude 4y ago

During a heatwave. Seems dystopian. Striking seems very justified, agreement or no.

SyzygistSix 4y ago
I think that is the crux of the matter. 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 workers are noping out because it isn't worth it. And neither side may have seen this as a a possibility when the contract was signed,as it may have never been an issue before.