12 ms·

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 w

by 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.
  - refurb 4y ago
    I mean, the union members agreed to a collective agreement. That's a legally binding contract with their employer.. If you entered a contract with someone and they violated it, would you go after damages? Would you be upset if the court found them in contempt if they ignored the court order? I'm all for unions entering collective agreements. But you agree, then you agree. You don't get to agree, then back out later on because you changed your mind. Well, you can, but you'll face consequences. What the union wants is "to eat their cake and have it too". If their employer decided to ignore some part of their collective agreement, then ignore a court order, would you side with the employer? Of course not, they violated the agreement.
    - aesh2Xa1 4y ago
      I think you misspoke about the legality of contracts compared to the criminality of contracts. Criminal activity is the sort that constitutes jail time. That was bullet #2 in my comment, but I want to ask directly again: Do you believe the failure to show up to work begets jail time? That aside, I understand your position now. In response to the question of whether the company's three bullets were reasonable, you argued that "a deal is a deal." In line with the bullets, here's what you think is true if you hold onto that argument. May I ask if you agree with the following characterizations? I did not embellish them compared to the memo, but maybe you'll break them down: - An employee who fails to turn up for work should compensate the employer for liabilities such as production costs, penalties, and the employer's loss of contracts with clients. - An employee who fails to turn up for work should be subject to fines and jailing, enforced by the government. - The employer should be upset. I agree with you here. I do not believe any of the above should be enforced by the government, contract or not. Further, it is common that contracts are _not_ enforceable when they contradict the law or are simply unconscionable. That is to say that it is not the case that "a deal is a deal" in all matters, and in this matter, I would side with the employee.
      - refurb 4y ago
        I'm not sure how you got to where you are right now. I would read the actual decision of the labor board: http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/decisions/GE_08829.pdf http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/decisions/GE_08829.pdf The board is saying "employees should stop their illegal strike, employees should stop any action encouraging others to strike illegally, the union should post this decision, and if employees and "Once filed, the Directives will be enforceable as an Order of the Court. Violation of a court order can result in civil or criminal penalties including contempt of court." So yes, this decision is legally binding as a court order and if the employees decide to ignore a court order (just as if an employer did the same), the court has the ability to institute civil and criminal penalties. I mean, it's no different than if you and I write up a contract to buy a car. If I decide to break the contract, you take me to court and I ignore the court when they say "give the money back", yeah, I could go to jail or face fines, etc. None of this should be a surprise. If unions (and their members) want to be able to legally enforce contracts against their employer, well, those same contracts are legally enforceable against them, up to, and including, civil and criminal penalties.
- Fradow 4y ago
  Actually "refusing to work overtime is considered to be a strike" is certainly not boring from my point of view. I would have expected it to go the other way, i.e. "refusing to work overtime is not considered to be a strike". But yes, I'm not a media reporter, I'd probably suck at it. By the way, if someone have a link to the court decision, it should be interesting to read. It was not linked in the article.
  - Wyoming23 4y ago
    You're leaving out critical information. It's "the union and business agreed to a labor plan that can require overtime in specific conditions written into the labor contract. Rogue employees are violating that contract rather than renegotiating it under the terms of their union agreement". This is a nothing story. Workers violated their union employment contract, and a court said "yep, they're violating their union labor contract".
aesh2Xa1 4y ago
Striking is an essential tool for union power, and the union agreement gives up the ability to strike so long as it is in effect. Giving up striking is akin to giving up all further collective bargaining outside the gains of the current agreement. The memo is absurd all on its own. Outside of the threats to jail employees, the final bullet comes off as infantile and petty. Does Canadian law permit jail time for breaking a labor contract? That seems to be the most wildly absurd component of the entire story. Memo: https://www.reddit.com/gallery/wzy0sn https://www.reddit.com/gallery/wzy0sn Union agreement: https://sp.ltc.gov.on.ca/sites/mol/drs/ca/Real%20Estate%20and%20Rental%20and%20Leasing/532-90013-22.pdf https://sp.ltc.gov.on.ca/sites/mol/drs/ca/Real%20Estate%20an...
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > Giving up striking is akin to giving up all further collective bargaining outside the gains of the current agreement. Nonsense. While the current agreement is in force, it's perfectly legitimate to start negotiating a new agreement. It's quite possible for that to happen without first staging a strike. Industrial action is for when negotiation has failed; you give due notice to terminate the existing agreement, on the grounds that it has failed, and hold a vote on action. > Does Canadian law permit jail time for breaking a labor contract? The threat in the letter is that jail time might be a possibility if workers violate court orders (contempt of court is mentioned). It's not simply for breaking a contract. If you break an employment contract, the contract is arguably void, and you are no longer employed, that's all.
  - aesh2Xa1 4y ago
    Striking is an essential tool for unions. You didn’t comment on that part, but you did try to throw out the baby with the bathwater in calling the whole position nonsense. Do you think striking is not an essential tool for unions? The court order in the memo is this: “The Board ruled that refusing to work ‘voluntary’ overtime is an unlawful strike and in violation of the Labour Relations Code.” The “voluntary” overtime is a clause in the union’s agreement, which is a contract (and which I linked). The court’s order is dependent upon the inclusion of the clause in the contract. I think that’s pretty clear, but could you explain why that isn’t agreeable to you?
dbingham 4y ago
There is so much that could be said here... but a company forcing workers to work overtime is both a) run of the mill in terms of history and b) still reprehensible. Strikes always have been of grey legality, because the law has always been much more responsive to the concerns of business owners and investors than to those of the workers. There are many examples of historical strikes that ended in workers being gunned down by the army. The bargaining table is always going to be tilted away from the workers, which is how you end up with collective bargaining agreements like this: with clauses that allow workers to be forced to work involuntary overtime and that make workers using their power to renegotiate the agreement illegal. But that doesn't mean we should accept that fact or call it "reasonable". It's not. It never has been. It never will be. This is why I don't believe unions are the solution to issues of inequity and abuse in the workplace. They are a bandaid and a poor one at that. The solution is for the people who are doing the work to also be the ones governing the business. And for the people who provided the capital to merely be given a reasonable return, and nothing more.
- Fradow 4y ago
  Just to be clear, I don't pass any judgement about forcing overtime / forbidding strikes. I also think those are bad practices, and I'm pretty sure both are not legal in my country (in which most labor advances were a hard-won battle involving strikes, the country is famous for its strikes, you can probably guess it already). I just tried to figure out the actual situation in a way that would actually make sense, assuming everyone involved was reasonable and tried to abid by the law.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> 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". How can it even be legal to give up the right to strike in a collective agreement? How can it be legal to work overtime without extra pay? I’m once again shocked by the sorry state of working laws in the USA.
- cplusplusfellow 4y ago
  I hated giving Vice a click because this article headline has already received its due ridicule in the current thread. However just to confirm for you, the first words of the article are: > Last week, AlumaSafway, a Canadian scaffolding company,
- realityking 4y ago
  This is actually quite reasonable and the same in Germany as well. While a collective bargaining agreement is in effect and has not been cancelled (there are minimum times and notice periods), a strike would be illegal. The idea is to give both sides some assurance that what has been agreed is stable and not up to the whim of either the employer or the union.
  - Bilal_io 4y ago
    The way my break breaks down this issue is simple (to me): - overtime should be optional, you don't know what's going on in people's lives. They should have the right to refuse to work overtime without justification. - the business should compensate workers for working overtime. - if nobody wants to work overtime, that's the company's problem, they could change shifts to accommodate different hours. - since I believe overtime is optional, then firing a worker for it should be an offense that warrants the union to be involved, and the union may use its collective bargaining power to make a change. But of course, the policy the workers/union agreed to is important to consider. That being said, companies take advantage of unpaid overtime to overwork their employees, and it becomes a habit and easy money-saver solution.
- 4y ago
drewcoo 4y ago
Acting without voting made this an "illegal strike." If they'd all voted to stop, there would be no threat of jail. This is a garbage ruling because obviously there was consensus among the workers otherwise it would never have been a problem and gone to court. And the point of the vote is to demonstrate consensus.

by Fradow 4y ago

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.
- refurb 4y ago
  I mean, the union members agreed to a collective agreement. That's a legally binding contract with their employer.. If you entered a contract with someone and they violated it, would you go after damages? Would you be upset if the court found them in contempt if they ignored the court order? I'm all for unions entering collective agreements. But you agree, then you agree. You don't get to agree, then back out later on because you changed your mind. Well, you can, but you'll face consequences. What the union wants is "to eat their cake and have it too". If their employer decided to ignore some part of their collective agreement, then ignore a court order, would you side with the employer? Of course not, they violated the agreement.
  - aesh2Xa1 4y ago
    I think you misspoke about the legality of contracts compared to the criminality of contracts. Criminal activity is the sort that constitutes jail time. That was bullet #2 in my comment, but I want to ask directly again: Do you believe the failure to show up to work begets jail time? That aside, I understand your position now. In response to the question of whether the company's three bullets were reasonable, you argued that "a deal is a deal." In line with the bullets, here's what you think is true if you hold onto that argument. May I ask if you agree with the following characterizations? I did not embellish them compared to the memo, but maybe you'll break them down: - An employee who fails to turn up for work should compensate the employer for liabilities such as production costs, penalties, and the employer's loss of contracts with clients. - An employee who fails to turn up for work should be subject to fines and jailing, enforced by the government. - The employer should be upset. I agree with you here. I do not believe any of the above should be enforced by the government, contract or not. Further, it is common that contracts are _not_ enforceable when they contradict the law or are simply unconscionable. That is to say that it is not the case that "a deal is a deal" in all matters, and in this matter, I would side with the employee.
    - refurb 4y ago
      I'm not sure how you got to where you are right now. I would read the actual decision of the labor board: http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/decisions/GE_08829.pdf http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/decisions/GE_08829.pdf The board is saying "employees should stop their illegal strike, employees should stop any action encouraging others to strike illegally, the union should post this decision, and if employees and "Once filed, the Directives will be enforceable as an Order of the Court. Violation of a court order can result in civil or criminal penalties including contempt of court." So yes, this decision is legally binding as a court order and if the employees decide to ignore a court order (just as if an employer did the same), the court has the ability to institute civil and criminal penalties. I mean, it's no different than if you and I write up a contract to buy a car. If I decide to break the contract, you take me to court and I ignore the court when they say "give the money back", yeah, I could go to jail or face fines, etc. None of this should be a surprise. If unions (and their members) want to be able to legally enforce contracts against their employer, well, those same contracts are legally enforceable against them, up to, and including, civil and criminal penalties.
Fradow 4y ago
Actually "refusing to work overtime is considered to be a strike" is certainly not boring from my point of view. I would have expected it to go the other way, i.e. "refusing to work overtime is not considered to be a strike". But yes, I'm not a media reporter, I'd probably suck at it. By the way, if someone have a link to the court decision, it should be interesting to read. It was not linked in the article.
- Wyoming23 4y ago
  You're leaving out critical information. It's "the union and business agreed to a labor plan that can require overtime in specific conditions written into the labor contract. Rogue employees are violating that contract rather than renegotiating it under the terms of their union agreement". This is a nothing story. Workers violated their union employment contract, and a court said "yep, they're violating their union labor contract".

aesh2Xa1 4y ago

Striking is an essential tool for union power, and the union agreement gives up the ability to strike so long as it is in effect. Giving up striking is akin to giving up all further collective bargaining outside the gains of the current agreement. The memo is absurd all on its own. Outside of the threats to jail employees, the final bullet comes off as infantile and petty. Does Canadian law permit jail time for breaking a labor contract? That seems to be the most wildly absurd component of the entire story. Memo: https://www.reddit.com/gallery/wzy0sn https://www.reddit.com/gallery/wzy0sn Union agreement: https://sp.ltc.gov.on.ca/sites/mol/drs/ca/Real%20Estate%20and%20Rental%20and%20Leasing/532-90013-22.pdf https://sp.ltc.gov.on.ca/sites/mol/drs/ca/Real%20Estate%20an...

denton-scratch 4y ago
> Giving up striking is akin to giving up all further collective bargaining outside the gains of the current agreement. Nonsense. While the current agreement is in force, it's perfectly legitimate to start negotiating a new agreement. It's quite possible for that to happen without first staging a strike. Industrial action is for when negotiation has failed; you give due notice to terminate the existing agreement, on the grounds that it has failed, and hold a vote on action. > Does Canadian law permit jail time for breaking a labor contract? The threat in the letter is that jail time might be a possibility if workers violate court orders (contempt of court is mentioned). It's not simply for breaking a contract. If you break an employment contract, the contract is arguably void, and you are no longer employed, that's all.
- aesh2Xa1 4y ago
  Striking is an essential tool for unions. You didn’t comment on that part, but you did try to throw out the baby with the bathwater in calling the whole position nonsense. Do you think striking is not an essential tool for unions? The court order in the memo is this: “The Board ruled that refusing to work ‘voluntary’ overtime is an unlawful strike and in violation of the Labour Relations Code.” The “voluntary” overtime is a clause in the union’s agreement, which is a contract (and which I linked). The court’s order is dependent upon the inclusion of the clause in the contract. I think that’s pretty clear, but could you explain why that isn’t agreeable to you?

dbingham 4y ago

There is so much that could be said here... but a company forcing workers to work overtime is both a) run of the mill in terms of history and b) still reprehensible. Strikes always have been of grey legality, because the law has always been much more responsive to the concerns of business owners and investors than to those of the workers. There are many examples of historical strikes that ended in workers being gunned down by the army. The bargaining table is always going to be tilted away from the workers, which is how you end up with collective bargaining agreements like this: with clauses that allow workers to be forced to work involuntary overtime and that make workers using their power to renegotiate the agreement illegal. But that doesn't mean we should accept that fact or call it "reasonable". It's not. It never has been. It never will be. This is why I don't believe unions are the solution to issues of inequity and abuse in the workplace. They are a bandaid and a poor one at that. The solution is for the people who are doing the work to also be the ones governing the business. And for the people who provided the capital to merely be given a reasonable return, and nothing more.

Fradow 4y ago
Just to be clear, I don't pass any judgement about forcing overtime / forbidding strikes. I also think those are bad practices, and I'm pretty sure both are not legal in my country (in which most labor advances were a hard-won battle involving strikes, the country is famous for its strikes, you can probably guess it already). I just tried to figure out the actual situation in a way that would actually make sense, assuming everyone involved was reasonable and tried to abid by the law.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

> 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". How can it even be legal to give up the right to strike in a collective agreement? How can it be legal to work overtime without extra pay? I’m once again shocked by the sorry state of working laws in the USA.

cplusplusfellow 4y ago
I hated giving Vice a click because this article headline has already received its due ridicule in the current thread. However just to confirm for you, the first words of the article are: > Last week, AlumaSafway, a Canadian scaffolding company,
realityking 4y ago
This is actually quite reasonable and the same in Germany as well. While a collective bargaining agreement is in effect and has not been cancelled (there are minimum times and notice periods), a strike would be illegal. The idea is to give both sides some assurance that what has been agreed is stable and not up to the whim of either the employer or the union.
- Bilal_io 4y ago
  The way my break breaks down this issue is simple (to me): - overtime should be optional, you don't know what's going on in people's lives. They should have the right to refuse to work overtime without justification. - the business should compensate workers for working overtime. - if nobody wants to work overtime, that's the company's problem, they could change shifts to accommodate different hours. - since I believe overtime is optional, then firing a worker for it should be an offense that warrants the union to be involved, and the union may use its collective bargaining power to make a change. But of course, the policy the workers/union agreed to is important to consider. That being said, companies take advantage of unpaid overtime to overwork their employees, and it becomes a habit and easy money-saver solution.
4y ago

drewcoo 4y ago

Acting without voting made this an "illegal strike." If they'd all voted to stop, there would be no threat of jail. This is a garbage ruling because obviously there was consensus among the workers otherwise it would never have been a problem and gone to court. And the point of the vote is to demonstrate consensus.