Labour Relations: Unionism in Canada and the United States - Essay Example

"Unions are becoming more popular, however the gap between employer resistance is growing through various union avoidance strategies." IntroductionUnions represent approximately a third of the workforce in Canada. Through collective bargaining and their role of representing workers day-to-day in the workplace, unions have a significant positive impact on workers' wages, benefits, and working conditions, while also providing them with a voice in their workplace. Having a voice means having a say in how the workplace is organized, how managers treat workers and having greater protection against arbitrary dismissal. The bulk of a union's time and resources is spent on negotiating, administering and defending collective agreements with employers. "Unions are becoming more popular, however the gap between employer resistance is growing through various union avoidance strategies." Governments, took some responsibility for setting the terms and conditions under which people had to work in the paid labour market. Unions played an important role in this process, improving upon the terms and conditions of employment, offering workers a voice in workplace decisions to counterbalance the power of employers, and pressuring governments to establish and improve upon policies and regulations governing the labour market. Unions spend more time and resources reaching out to and trying to understand groups of workers and workplaces that at one time were invisible in the union. This includes youth, women, people of color, and those employed on a contingent basis, particularly in the private service sector. Unions across Canada have undergone a radical transformation in their orientation towards membership expansion through organizing the unorganized. Although employers and governments play an important and active role in diminishing union popularity and influence, unions have unwittingly reinforced many negative views about their practice. "In Ontario, workplaces where women constitute the majority of workers are 14% more likely to vote in favour of a union than are workplaces where men are the majority of workers. Small female majority workplaces (up to 16 employees) have a success rate in organizing of 89%." 1 Management has complete discretion to lay-off, transfer or terminate people based on business decisions. Through collective bargaining, unions have been able to offer workers greater job security through clauses on seniority, advance notice of lay-off, restrictions on contracting out and language on technological change (Rose & Chaison 87). At times of economic insecurity and competitiveness and as businesses engage in rapid restructuring of their operations, these provisions become ever more important in providing people with some degree of control in their employment situation. Government social policies in Canada reduced people's utter dependence on the labour market and set the minimum terms and conditions for employment. Welfare programmes, mother's allowance and unemployment insurance, as well as public healthcare and education, all acted to reduce people's dependence upon the labour market. These programmes provided them 1 "Unions and Federations in Canada ." Dyjan A N. 2005. pp. 37-38 with a buffer against the harshness of the marketplace in recognition of difficult and different life experiences. Similarly, government regulation of minimum wage, hours of work, and health and safety standards established socially acceptable minimum standards for employment. Unionism in Canada and the United States Although unions have devoted considerable energy and resources to new initiatives, the overall evidence leads us to generally pessimistic conclusions. The level and direction of union density rates indicates the two labour movements lack the institutional frameworks and public policies to achieve sustained revival. Significant gains in union membership and density levels will require nothing less than a paradigm shift in the industrial relations systems-a broadening of the scope and depth of membership recruitment, workplace representation and political activities. It should show itself as significant and lasting gains in membership and density that can translate into greater bargaining strength and political influence. Canadian unionization rates have continued to grow to their current level of 37 percent of the workforce, the once-powerful U.S. labour movement has seen its influence decline and the organization rate tumble to 16 percent of the workforce, while wage disparity has dramatically increased and average living standards for working people have fallen. U.S. labour has seen a significant rolling back of its rights including in recent years the undermining of a fundamental union right, the right to strike, through the use of "permanent replacement workers" but labour in many Canadian jurisdictions has continued to win important innovative labour law reforms and rights for its members and for all workers in Canada ( Dyjan 81 ). Though far from ideal, unionists in the U.S. have begun to use Canadian labour laws as examples of modest reforms that would bring a semblance of fairness to U.S. industrial relations. Trade unionists are not the only ones to point out the problems created for U.S. society at large by the abrupt decline in union power. The employer hostility and resistance to unions in Canada, a combination of tougher labour laws, and the greater political weight of unions has tended to temper employer resistance. There are significant differences in the overall approach of organized labour in the two countries. The Canadian labour movement, for example, has developed a different approach to labour political action, rejecting the two major parties and founding its own political party. Because a majority of Canadian workers are covered by provincial labour law, unions are able to win ground breaking legislation in one jurisdiction through labour political action at the provincial level, and then generalize the success to other provinces. In recent years, Canadian unions have gone through a number of changes. While for most of the twentieth century Canadian unionists were members of US-based "international unions," today, a majority are from national unions. And many of the Canadian unionists who have remained in international unions have won special rights in order to assure that Canadians can choose their own national officers and participate and comment on questions of national importance without seeking clearance. Overall, Canadian unions have sought closer alliances with social movements and they have come to emphasize "social unionism" over the service or business union model dominant in the U.S. (Errol Black 162) From the popular viewpoint, unionism is a simple, definite phenomenon upon which it is easy and safe to pass positive and sweeping judgments. Almost everyone, in fact, who is at all interested in economic or social affairs is inclined to assume that he knows just about what unionism is and just what ought to be done about it. The unionism may be after all, not a simple, consistent entity, but a complex of the utmost diversity, both structurally and functionally. The fact that unionism has not a single genesis, but that it has made its appearance, time after time, independently, wherever in the modern industrial era a group of workers, large or small, has developed a strong internal consciousness of common interests. It shows that each union and each union group have undergone a constant process of change functionally and structurally, responding apparently to the group psychology and therefore to the changing conditions, needs, and problems of its membership. It reveals unionism as above all else essentially an opportunistic, a pragmatic phenomenon. Idealism has frequently been a genetic and formative force in union history, and the autocrat has played an important role in union affairs (Dyjan 179). Comparative overview of Canadian and U.S. unionism In the mid-1950s, union density stood at about one-third of the non-agricultural workforce in both Canada and the United States. Since then, the direction of unionism has diverged. U.S. union membership expanded up to 1975, but failed to keep pace with employment growth. As a result, union density dropped below 25 percent by the late 1970s and, by 1999, had plummeted to just below 14 percent. (Dyjan 63) U.S. unions lost nearly 6-million members between 1975 and 1999. In contrast, union density in Canada experienced modest increases before stabilizing at between 32 percent and 35 percent throughout the 1990s. Between 1980 and 1999, Canadian unions expanded by more than 18%, but these gains lagged employment growth (Dyjan 63). Whereas union decline in the 1980s was prevalent among eighteen OECD countries, the United States experienced one of the steepest declines in union density and now has one of the lowest national density rates. (Dyjan 63) Union density in Canada, on the other hand, has remained relatively stable, preserving its ranking as a middle-density country. The divergence in union density between the United States and Canada has been attributed to three broad factors related to the ability of unions to recruit new members. First, both the levels of organizing activity and organizing success rates have been substantially higher in Canada than in the United States (Joseph 45). To a considerable extent, this has been associated with differences in the legal environment. The American system of labour board certification of unions relies on elections among workers and typically results in protracted campaigns in which employers use union-avoidance tactics ranging from procedural delays to discrimination against union supporters. (Joseph 45) In contrast, certification in Canada normally is based on signed membership cards, thereby minimizing the opportunity for employers to resist unions . As well, the incidence of employer unfair labour practices is substantially higher in the United States and legal remedies to combat employer interference are not as strong or as effective as those in Canada (Joseph 46). Higher unionization has also enabled Canadian unions to outperform their American counterparts in collective bargaining. Furthermore, concession bargaining was far more prevalent in the United States where union membership losses and aggressive employer bargaining strategies put unions on the defensive approach. The inability of American unions to repel employer demands for concessions and secure collective bargaining gains did little to increase the attractiveness of unionism among non-union workers. The affiliation between organized labour and the social democratic party, the New Democratic Party (NDP), has enhanced the political influence of Canadian unions (Joseph 51). In contrast, union-political party linkages in the United States are less formal and unions have not been able to persuade Congress to reform the national collective bargaining law. The Canadian public sector density rate is nearly double that of the United States and that private sector unionism has declined at a much slower rate in Canada. Further, structural differences in the economies and labour forces have been shown to account for only 15 percent of the U.S.-Canada unionization gap (Dyjan 123). The structural changes are not responsible for much of the union density decline. The trends in the two countries are often ambiguous, sometimes contradictory and usually changing over time. Public approval of unions as institutions and of union leaders may fall, while public support for what unions do rises. Unions may be seen at one time as powerful but needed, at other times no longer powerful but still needed. They may be perceived as good for workers, but not necessarily as good for the economy or the public generally. Workforce surveys as distinct from public opinion polls show a significant reservoir of support for unions, but such support often dissipates during organizing campaigns where there is stiff employer opposition. When comparing the U.S. and Canadian labour movements, there exists a symbiotic relationship between union density and union effectiveness. As rightly quoted in Rose & Chaison; "declining density in the United States has lowered union performance in organizing, bargaining and political activity and this brought about further declines in density. The Canadian union movement has avoided a cycle of decline; its continued growth and stability have enabled it to confront challenges in resourceful and energetic ways and density level changed little during the turbulent 1980s." 2 The stability of union density in Canada over the past three decades reflects the considerable organizing success of unions, most notably in the public sector. However, if Canadian unions are to grow and prosper, major initiatives will be required. The organizing challenges faced by Canadian unions are daunting. They include the need to make significant inroads into what are commonly referred to as the "harder to organize" segments of the economy, including (1) the service sector, notably private services, (2) small and medium-sized enterprises and (3) components of the labour force that are expanding at above average rates. (Dyjan 143) In the public sector, privatization and contracting out have become more prevalent. When privatization involves the sale of an enterprise's assets, union representation often is retained through the doctrine of successor rights. Other forms of privatization and contracting out of public sector work to the private sector have required public sector unions to mount organizing campaigns in an attempt to recapture lost members. In recent years, there have been no new legislative initiatives to facilitate union organizing. Indeed, a political shift - the rise of neo-conservatism in Canada and decline of the NDP-has not only reduced the impetus to initiate labour law reforms, but it has led to the repeal, in some cases, of union-friendly legislation. (Dyjan 56) 2 Rose & Chaison 1996, Pages 100-101 In the United States, organizing also occurs in the absence of legislative initiatives that might simplify or expedite the union certification process, or impose greater penalties on employers who interfere with workers' rights to unionize. (Joseph 86). But with a density rate that is already so low and nearly two decades of precipitous decline in both density and membership levels, the organizing scene is far gloomier than in Canada. The demand for unionization in the United States appears quite stable. The most obvious difficulty is structural. The structure of organizing and collective bargaining is enterprise-based and thus highly decentralized. This means there are many unions and employers engaged in autonomous negotiations. As a result, there is an absence of centralized and coordinated bargaining by peak employer and union organizations aimed at establishing wages and working conditions across labour markets. Centralized labour markets are advantageous to union growth because they lower employer resistance to unions, permit union confederations to coordinate union organizing activity and give union confederations a voice in developing economic policy. The absence of centralized bargaining structures has been the principle barrier to expanding union influence, membership and density in Canada. Canadian unionism is characterized by strong workplace organization and the absence of macro-corporatist institutions (Dyjan 94). Unions in the United States engage in a bargaining process similar in form and structure to their Canadian counterparts and consequently the prospects for reviving collective bargaining appear limited. Growth is limited by decentralized bargaining, the absence of union controls over unemployment benefits, and the employers' reliance on out-sourcing. (Errol Black 93) Collective bargaining in both countries is fragmented, i.e., decentralized and uncoordinated. As a result, organizing and collective bargaining activity occurs on a piecemeal basis, thereby limiting opportunities for union acceptance and expansion. Unions in Canada may be perceived as more legitimate actors in the economy than their counterparts in the U.S. In both Canada and the United States, labour unions are important political players, capable of shaping to varied degrees the policies of major parties and affecting election outcomes. But their power is transitory and diffused; it leads to protection of workers in general, but falls short of bringing about the changes needed to revive the unions as institutions. Unions and politics in Canada are best understood in terms of the role of social democratic parties. In particular, social democratic governments have typically enacted legislation to foster union organizing, allowed unions to participate in shaping economic policy and developed generous welfare states.(Dyjan 35) Changes in the political context have reduced the political leverage of organized labour. In Canada, given the growing opposition of most incumbent governments toward unions (and occasional hostility toward public sector unions), the divisions within the NDP and the waning political influence of unions generally, and the tenuous support for the NDP among union members, the political climate is not likely to be supportive of union revival (Dyjan 28). In the United States, the absence of a social democratic party and the fact that the realization of major labour law reforms are not on either political party's agenda means that organizing will remain difficult and probably prohibitively expensive for labour. Trouble with Unionism The trouble with unionism is moral and the obvious remedy lies, therefore, in moral suasion and the preaching of social obligation; that unionism is an expression of crass ignorance, and hence is to be quietly disregarded while schemes are formulated and put into operation for the welfare of society as a whole; that the real problem is one of encouragement and support since unionism stands for all that is best in human conditions and relationships (Dyjan190). The scope and character of union ideals and methods have been as broad and diverse as the conscious common needs and conditions of the groups of workers entering into organization. Some unions have confined themselves to attempts to deal directly with their immediate employers and their immediate conditions of work and pay; others have emphasized mutual aid and education; still others have enlarged their field of thought and action to include all employers and all conditions-economic, legal, and social. Unionism is what it is and not what any advocate or opponent would have it be. It is a matter of fact in the same sense that institutions, animal and plant species, or any other organic manifestations are matters of fact. There is no normal or abnormal unionism; no unionism that is artificial as distinguished from that which is natural. In short, there is no fixed union norm by which any concrete case is to be tested; for all unionism is, and is becoming, by virtue of sufficient causation. The problems which it raises, therefore, like all other problems of a scientific nature, are to be solved, if at all, not through passion and prejudice and formulations of what ought to be, but through an intimate knowledge of the facts as they exist and a study of causes. Conclusion Unionism is a simple, definite phenomenon upon which it is easy and safe to pass positive and sweeping judgments. Almost everyone, in fact, who is at all interested in economic or social affairs is inclined to assume that he knows just about what unionism is and just what ought to be done about it. In essence, unionism in both countries depends on high levels of organizing activity and success. The organizing task that lies ahead is far greater for U.S. unions than Canadian ones because of the significant differences in union density. In both countries, employers are now much more sophisticated in fighting union organizing and finding ways to satisfy workers' psychological as well as financial needs that might otherwise be fulfilled by union representation. Canadian unions have had a longer history of success in coalition activities. In both countries, coalitions have proven effective in support of strikers and organizing campaigns, particularly among the low-paid workers, and they are crucial for political action. As Dave said: " The trade union movement has the most to be proud of when it has been progressive not protectionist; fraternal and inclusive, not elitist and insular; when it challenges the system not kneels before it... trade unions must be seen to be fighting for a better world for everyone!" 3 3 "Strategies for Hope." Dave. 2002. pp-167 Work cited "Best News for Labor in 50 Years" Mypetjawa.mu.nu. Retrieved on 02 December, 2006. [http://72.14.235.104/searchq=cache:Oe4r__NYL6cJ:mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/10671 2.php+report+on+Unionism+in+Canada&hl=en&gl=in&ct=clnk&cd=9&lr=lang_en] Dave. "Strategies for Hope." Eastern Book House, Lucknow . 2002. Dyjan A N. "Unions and Federations in Canada ." Pen Book Publishing House, New Delhi. 2005. Errol Black ."Building a Better World: An Introduction to Unionism in Canada". 2005. Joseph B Rose. "The Prospects for Revival." Universite Laval - Departement des Relations Industrielles. 2006. "The Divergent Paths of Organized labor In US and Canada". Law.harward.edu/programs/lw. Retrieved on 02 December, 2006. [http://72.14.235.104/searchq=cache:r-e_paLSMIEJ:www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lw p/eb/canusa.pdf] Rose & Chaison. "Employment Relations in a Changing World Economy". 1999. "Unionism in Canada" Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez Retrieved on 01 December, 2006. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgicmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=5183910&dopt] Read More