Workers are important assets of a country’s organizations as well as builders of a country’s economy. Their productivity, however, is dependent on the way their employers treat them in all spheres of work including their representation in labor unions. In words of Bob Nelson, “Take time to appreciate your employees and they will reciprocate in a thousand ways.” An organization cannot be able to establish a good rapport with its customers without developing one with its employees. Labour unions or workers unions are organizations that have been established to represent workers interests to their employers regarding wages and salaries, working conditions as well as hours of work. This paper will therefore, address matters related to Canadian labour movement in modern times.
3. What are the current conditions for collective bargaining and strikes?
Collective bargaining is regarded as a method used by employees to jointly agree with their employers on matters related to wages, salaries, employee working conditions and their working hours through the labour unions representation. The Canadian Constitution under the labour law recognizes collective bargaining and grants workers a right to strike if their interests are not met. However, the current conditions for collective bargaining and strikes are terrible. The period is characterized by the declining of labour laws, outrageous attacks on labour movements by both the government and employers as well as crushed strikes. Among other characteristics are the unending concessionary agreements and the impulsive weakening of membership.
Labour management partnerships have also been established as a result of the unwillingness of employers to be fair. Leadership structure in workers movements is considered to be weak hence failing to support collective bargaining. As a result, workers have ended up facing socio-economic inequality. The establishment of untrustworthy political friendships and right wing backlash have hindered effective collective bargaining and strikes.
Why did Inco workers go on strike in 2000/2001 and again in 2004? What are the similarities between the two strikes? What are the differences?
In 2000/2001, Inco workers went on a strike that was caused by the following reasons. First, pensions accorded to workers were unsatisfactory as the company paid a guaranteed amount to workers upon retirement. The workers, however, demanded for a plan that would define the amount paid in to workers hired from 2010 and the amount paid upon retirement to be undefined and heavily dependent on instabilities in stock market. Secondly, was the demand for a nickel bonus which implied additional wages to be given to employees due to an increase in the price of nickel above a certain specified amount. Lastly, the attack on seniority rights as a way of preventing workers from bidding for other senior posts within the company more than once in three years. As a result workers with decades of seniority would be fired while those that were newly hired remained (Leadbeater pp 12-100).
In 2004, the strike was caused by workers demand for an increase in wages since the price of nickel ad increased tremendously in the market and the company was unwilling to work with the trade unions to settle scores. Unions accused the company of being a foreign entity that was trying to change the country’s labour culture. Similarities between the two strikes were, the demand for wage increment due to increase in nickel price and the use of labour movements to champion for workers’ rights. The differences however, involved the demand for reviewed pension plan and the reduction of attacks on seniority rights which were some of the reasons that led to 2000/2001 strike. The 2004 strike advocated for more rights to be given to labour unions for collective bargaining as well as the undermining of labour culture by the company.
What can be done to build stronger unions in the future? Or would you say this is not possible in the first place? If so explain.
There are a number of suggestions made that I would agree with from the student’s comment. First, is the idea of activism where the workers who earn higher wages can come together and champion for changes in the labour movements to bring about equality, cohesiveness and militancy. This idea is attributed to the fact that workers themselves are the agents of change who can bring about improvements in the working class movements. This will enable them to bridge the gap between unions and community as well as developing an identity for the unions as organizations championing for the rights of workers and not as separate isolated organizations (Camfield pp118-119).
Secondly, labour union movements fighting for workers’ rights should join and work together towards promoting change in the unions as well as efficiently representing workers to their employers. This could be achieved through employing new and advanced tactics that help to strengthen the unions. An example is the replacement of corporate unionism with mobilization unionism, a movement that is dedicated towards achieving social justice and creating awareness among its members to be more critical when dealing with managers as well as right wing governments. Canadian Auto Workers Union and United Auto Workers Union are at the forefront in using this approach thus setting a good example.
Unions should also educate their members on their importance as well as what is expected of them as members and how they can help administer positive change. They should use education as a stepping stone to motivate and inspire members to be more cooperative. Next members are urged to participate in leadership as well as engage in union activities to bring about solidarity and militancy (Camfield p118). To add on what was initially suggested, unions should ensure the creation of neo-liberal workers policy which gives rights to migrants and immigrants to be represented by unions and avoid exploitation by employers through tying up their visas and giving them low wages. Lastly, unions should advocate for gender parity and anti-racism campaigns. All people should fairly be represented despite their skin color, gender or age.
What has Basra 2006 to do with Philadelphia in 1869?
I agree with the student’s view of Basra oil workers and their unions against war and violence and advocating for peace. Through their General Union of Oil Employees in Basra, workers opposed the international corporations that wanted to control the national oil industry. The union also campaigned for better wages for workers and better working conditions including housing. Workers during this period portrayed solidarity and resilience. However, the union promoted the labour interests of workers but not through politics. The unions also championed for a country that would be distinct from religion thus leading to conflicts with religious groups (Mason pp80-85).
In Philadelphia, The Knights of Labour union was founded in 1869 as a secret society for tailors and later included workers from other occupations of different races and gender. The union advocated for an end to socialism as well as anarchism, demanded for working hours to be eight and supported republicanism. The common factor between Basra and Philadelphia was the fact that both labour unions were premature and could therefore not express the workers needs without facing opposition but possessed the ability to develop. I therefore think that more research needs to be done since there is information that maybe missing as well as the events that unfolded laying a foundation for the Basra labour movements.
In summary, labour movements did not just develop out of the blues. There foundation was laid by the activities that took place in the past that related to the issues that workers are still facing today. Despite their formation, labour movements are still not performing to standards due to influence from government as well as employers. Members are also uncooperative leading to their decline. As a result, workers movements are advised to develop reforms that will help bring about positive societal change and foster a good relationship with its members.
I
Work cited
Camfield, David. Canadian Labour in Crisis: Reinventing the Worker’s Movement. Halifax & Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing, 2011.
Leadbeater, David. Ed. Mining Town Crisis: Globalization, Labour and Resistance in Sudbury. Halifax & Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing. 2008.
Mason, Paul. Live Working or Die Fighting: How the Working Class Went Global. Chicago: Haymarket Books. 2010.
Poole, Robert. “‘By the Law or the Sword’: Peterloo Revisited.” History 91, no. 302: 254-276. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. 2006.
