3 ms·

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 positio

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.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > the dependency in the logic that the court published. The article didn't link to any court publication, so I haven't read any court announcement. > which the court recognizes as “the Union.” That doesn't sound right at all. There is already a union, with which the employer has a collective bargaining agreement. The court can deem the workers taking action to be "a union", but it's clearly not the union with which the employer has an agreement.
    - aesh2Xa1 4y ago
      > but it’s clearly not the union with which the employer has an agreement. What do you mean? This is the 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... I’ve already linked to it. There is, in fact, a union. That union is, in fact, “the Union” referred to in the Labour Relations Board decision. But, you’re right, there is actually no court order yet. The Board filed their decision with the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta. I think what’s happening here is that the company probably wants the strike to be considered an official union action (requiring a vote to strike) so that the company can then take action (for example, labor law in Alberta might permit them to permanently terminate all striking workers without paying unemployment).

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.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > the dependency in the logic that the court published. The article didn't link to any court publication, so I haven't read any court announcement. > which the court recognizes as “the Union.” That doesn't sound right at all. There is already a union, with which the employer has a collective bargaining agreement. The court can deem the workers taking action to be "a union", but it's clearly not the union with which the employer has an agreement.
  - aesh2Xa1 4y ago
    > but it’s clearly not the union with which the employer has an agreement. What do you mean? This is the 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... I’ve already linked to it. There is, in fact, a union. That union is, in fact, “the Union” referred to in the Labour Relations Board decision. But, you’re right, there is actually no court order yet. The Board filed their decision with the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta. I think what’s happening here is that the company probably wants the strike to be considered an official union action (requiring a vote to strike) so that the company can then take action (for example, labor law in Alberta might permit them to permanently terminate all striking workers without paying unemployment).