5 ms·

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

• 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?
    • itsdrewmiller 4y ago
      It's an unlawful strike because they didn't vote to strike. They are still permitted to do that.
    • denton-scratch 4y ago
      > Do you think striking is not an essential tool for unions? I do think that the threat of industrial action and withdrawal of labour is an essential tool for workers; nobody should be forced to work against their will, if they are prepared to forgo pay. That extends to unions, in the sense that workers can band together, negotiate collectively, and withdraw their labour en-masse. > a clause in the union’s agreement, which is a contract I believe that agreement is between the union and the employer; it doesn't bind individual workers (although they might face being kicked out of the union). I don't agree that a collective-bargaining agreement amounts to a contract, neither between the union and the employer, nor between individual workers and the employer. Courts might well disagree with me on that, but I say that nobody can make a contract on my behalf, unless they have my power of attorney. So the existence of a collective bargaining agreement doesn't put me in violation of any contract if I participate in wildcat industrial action, other than my contract of employment; but there are several ways in which I could be held criminally liable, if I don't have the backing of the union, such as violating court orders, and maybe conspiracy.
      • aesh2Xa1 4y ago
        > I do think that the threat of industrial action and withdrawal of labour is an essential tool for workers […] That extends to unions, in the sense that workers can band together, negotiate collectively, and withdraw their labour en-masse. I agree with you on this statement. I don’t think we agree about something a little more representational regarding the union as an agent of the individual worker. The reason I pointed to the union agreement clause was to point out the dependency in the logic that the court published. The court is requiring action on the part of the individual because the court perceives the individual workers to be operating as a collective, which the court recognizes as “the Union.” The Union is contracted with “the Employer” such that the individual actions, as a collective, are in violation of that contract. The court order includes threat of contempt of court, but the order is to stop individual action which is only in violation of the union contract. I don’t understand how you’re walking around that aspect.
  • trashtester 4y ago
    > If you break an employment contract, the contract is arguably void, and you are no longer employed, that's all. That depends on the nature of the way you break it. If breaking the contract willfully, even after receiving warnings causes considerable harm to the company, you can expect to be held accountable for the consequences. Also, if you break a contract in a way that causes a company to break the law, I suppose it could lead to criminal prosecution as well. Let's say you're an airplane inspector, and you sign off on a checklist without actually checking the plane, you could be in trouble if the plane crashes, especially of your team cover up for each other when doing so. Similarly, if you work on an oil rig installation, and something bad (like and oil spill) is the result, it may be more than just losing your job. Now in the case of this article, the topic is not just about individuals breaking their contracts, but indeed there seems to be someone organizing it. Organizing some activity with the explicit intent to cause harm to the company may very well be subject to prosecution, just like organizing a hacker group to attack the computer systems would. Indeed, in the early days of the labour movement, ring leaders frequently went to jail. Eventually those conflicts were solved in a way that gave strikes a special status, explicitly allowing them. However, that came with some restrictions, such as the strike having to be organized by a union, and also some limits on how much damage the strike could cause (especially to third parties). Finally, unions would have the right to temporary forego the right to strike for a given duration, in exchange for some compensation up front. Actually, this last part can benefit the Union in that it provides a very valuable bargaining chip, especially if they work in a high-cost industry (such as oil&gas). By offering that chip, it may cause the employer to provide better conditions and pay than it otherwise would, in exchange for security. An employer not having the luxery of knowing that workers will not strike have higher risk, and will have a harder time finding investers. In turn, that means less growth, less ability to take on critical projects and generally a smaller pie to share between the workers and the owners.