4 ms·

> 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 worker

> 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).
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > What do you mean? I mean, you yourself said that the court has deemed the troublesome workers to be a union. Perhaps I misunderstood you. But they are already members of a union; it's just that the real union they belong to hasn't endorsed the action. The real union has an agreement with the employer; the union the court has synthesized, and has declared to be behind the action, doesn't have an agreement with anyone, because it's not a union.
    - aesh2Xa1 4y ago
      OK, although I agree with you that the labor relations board has inferred (“synthesized”) the action of the real union, the court might infer the same. What’s more, the act of striking (wildcat or not) could be a problem if the labor law permits the employer to terminate those employees without unemployment or to impose other actions, such as those they threatened in the memo. A wildcat action would not help the workers here, if/as there are: - more than two workers refusing to work (hence, an illegal strike) - the board did find the strike action to be illegal and recommended the same to the court - the court can issue an order to the striking workers The employer/board also found an anonymous letter, given the findings section the their decision [1]. Anyway, I don’t think we disagree at all at this point – you were just rejecting the idea that the board could prove it was the contracted union operating the strike. While I would agree that they cannot prove it, I think that the court decision will affirm the board’s finding. [1] http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/decisions/GE_08829.pdf http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/decisions/GE_08829.pdf > An anonymous letter was circulated to the Employees suggesting that Employees collectively refuse to work overtime shifts for the purpose of compelling incentives from the Employer, including improvements in compensation or working conditions, starting on Monday, August 22, 2022. The thing missing from this story is why the workers went on strike in the first place. Was there prolonged “voluntary overtime” and workers became tired? Why won’t the company hire more workers to resolve the issue?

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).
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > What do you mean? I mean, you yourself said that the court has deemed the troublesome workers to be a union. Perhaps I misunderstood you. But they are already members of a union; it's just that the real union they belong to hasn't endorsed the action. The real union has an agreement with the employer; the union the court has synthesized, and has declared to be behind the action, doesn't have an agreement with anyone, because it's not a union.
  - aesh2Xa1 4y ago
    OK, although I agree with you that the labor relations board has inferred (“synthesized”) the action of the real union, the court might infer the same. What’s more, the act of striking (wildcat or not) could be a problem if the labor law permits the employer to terminate those employees without unemployment or to impose other actions, such as those they threatened in the memo. A wildcat action would not help the workers here, if/as there are: - more than two workers refusing to work (hence, an illegal strike) - the board did find the strike action to be illegal and recommended the same to the court - the court can issue an order to the striking workers The employer/board also found an anonymous letter, given the findings section the their decision [1]. Anyway, I don’t think we disagree at all at this point – you were just rejecting the idea that the board could prove it was the contracted union operating the strike. While I would agree that they cannot prove it, I think that the court decision will affirm the board’s finding. [1] http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/decisions/GE_08829.pdf http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/decisions/GE_08829.pdf > An anonymous letter was circulated to the Employees suggesting that Employees collectively refuse to work overtime shifts for the purpose of compelling incentives from the Employer, including improvements in compensation or working conditions, starting on Monday, August 22, 2022. The thing missing from this story is why the workers went on strike in the first place. Was there prolonged “voluntary overtime” and workers became tired? Why won’t the company hire more workers to resolve the issue?