Unfortunately, it’s easy to see how some workers, and particularly young workers, have become less aware of unions and the role they played in shaping the 20th century. Unions aren’t in the media as much as they once were—and labour news isn’t exactly a hot topic on social media. There is the sense that unions are a thing of the past, unnecessary now that Canada has labour laws and minimum wages. Corporations have capitalized on this sentiment, suggesting that unionized workplaces are inefficient and outdated, and that unions just get in the way of healthy, fluid relationships between workers and management.Just as discouraging, the Conservative government is now encroaching on workers’ hard-won right to strike. In June 2011, the Harper government enacted back-to-work legislation after postal workers went on a rotating strike and were subsequently locked out of work by Canada Post. The Canadian Postal Workers Union is challenging the legality of this legislation. In March 2012, similar legislation was used to prevent Air Canada workers from striking. Without the right to strike—or even to present a legitimate threat of strike action—unions lose one of their key bargaining chips.
“The influence of unions has slowly been diminishing,” says Andy Neufeld, director of communications and education at United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1518, which, along with UFCW local 247, represents most of the unionized supermarket workers in B.C. (As the largest retail union in Canada, UFCW would have been the most likely union for Dunlop and his coworkers to join.) Flagging awareness is exacerbated in the retail sector by the huge number of young workers with no previous union experience, he says. About 65 percent of workers in his local are under the age of 30. Many have little or no previous experience with unions.
Neufeld makes an extra effort to capture the enthusiasm of these workers, many of whom are disinclined to pay union dues and don’t see the benefit of membership—proven wage premiums, increased job security, better benefits, and a chance to have a stronger voice in the workplace. Neufeld says the union is trying to get this message out there, but is sending information into a glutted market. “We’re competing for people’s attention,” he adds, “just like everybody else.”
Youth and organized labour
bump!
The UFCW will need to do a lot of penance before I am willing to forgive them for their role in destroying the unionized grocery sector and starting the long, long slide down the slippery slope of two tiered contracts. Every union since has had to fight managements proposals to sell out the new hires. It was recently forced on Local 6500 of the Steelworkers in Sudbury after a long and bitter strike.
I know the UFCW are trying to change but acknowledging their history would seem to me to be a precondition for any change to occur. As one of the main causes of the deunionization of the industry its lack of self analysis makes me concerned that the union has not learned a thing. They had a change to fight in the late '80's and they chose to protect their middle aged workers at the price of throwing the youth coming into the industry under the bus.
Then, in 1989, a single event changed everything - UFCW gave a new competitor to British Columbia huge concessions. Enter the "two tiered" collective agreement that saw new-hires become second-class employees, with part-time hours and radically lower wages than full-timers. Predictably, the immediate response from every other grocery chain was, "Me too, level playing field!!!" UFCW apologists offered the view that the new-hires would eventually work their way up to full-time wages and benefits. This would turn out to be nothing more than rhetoric as employers, quite predictably, did everything they could to prevent part-time employees from achieving full-time status. Quality of work for retail food workers has gone south ever since.
Known as the "777 agreement" after the UFCW Local 777 which signed the radical agreement, it signaled the end of quality work in the industry. Full-time work was transformed almost overnight into a fiscal liability to be eradicated ASAP. This human resource dynamic came knocking on the warehouse doors shortly thereafter.
I think that we're touching on one of the problems here. Labour officials can complain about youth not being interested in unions, but many unions have shown themselves not to be particularly interested in youth.
First, if a young worker is unionized, because of the industries where young workers are most present, it is likely to be with the UFCW - and the young worker is likely to be working under some kind of two-tier agreement, and not really seeing the benefits of unionization (I know folks who are UFCW members and make barely above minimum wage). Compounding this, the UFCW has a reputation as a very centralized union with little presence on the shop floor, so young workers in retail probably don't have the experience of talking to a shop steward. Of course, this isn't meant to bash UFCW, a lack of effort at engaging youth is a problem in most of the labour movement and is contributing to the idea that unions were for the last generation.
It's hard for young workers not to see the labour movement as passe if your union signed a two-tier agreement that defending your rights and your standard of living is passe.
Secondly, young workers seem to be disproportionately in jobs where not only are they non-union, but there is pretty much zero prospect of unionization - because the industry is seen as "unorganizable", or because the shop is seen as too small and too low-wage to be worth putting effort into (or a fiscal cost-benefit analysis of servicing cost versus dues income is unfavourable).
Finally, I'm not sure union political action is something that appeals to young activists. If young activists (outside of young NDP brown-nosers) are turned off from electoral politics, they aren't going to be excited about a political action committee that engages only in electoral politics.
And this is without even going into some of the juicier tidbits of gossip which I have been privy to regarding the relationship between young people and the labour movement in my neck of the woods.
I don't have the answer, but it seems to me that a few starting points should be:
1. Listen to young activists about what they want to do
2. Don't write off young workers through two-tier contracts
3. A culture of democracy is important to getting anyone, especially young people, involved in anything
Q: why doesn't someone start a new union specifically designed to represent youth workers across the country? The model possibly could be student unions.
Q: why doesn't someone start a new union specifically designed to represent youth workers across the country? The model possibly could be student unions.
I'd be curious how student unions would be a model for this, and how it would be any different from any other labour union, since most student unions are already structured in a similar way to labour unions (mandatory dues check-off, elected executives and staff running the day to day operations, tends to engage in vaguely progressive political action), the only difference being student unions don't have collective agreements with universities.
Heh. Okay, maybe it was a dumb idea. 
Q: why doesn't someone start a new union specifically designed to represent youth workers across the country? The model possibly could be student unions.
One of the strongest elements of the Quebec student movement is its use of the general assembly as a decision making body and the role of its "leaders" being defined as spokespeople only. In BC we have a FPTP system of student union elections that sees SFU having an 11% student voter turnout and a bunch of right wing jerks getting elected.
A union geared to youth making its decisions in general assemblies would be an awesome sight and I believe a very effective organizational model to get both engagement in decision making and real buy in into collective action.
Something else to consider is that many young workers are using their current jobs as a stepping stone to something better, particularly students. In other words, why would you be particularly concerned about this particular workplace when you're going to be out of here in a few years doing the job for which you are currently training? Doesn't always work out, but that's the theory behind it.
And women work for pin money?
One of the strongest elements of the Quebec student movement is its use of the general assembly as a decision making body and the role of its "leaders" being defined as spokespeople only. In BC we have a FPTP system of student union elections that sees SFU having an 11% student voter turnout and a bunch of right wing jerks getting elected.A union geared to youth making its decisions in general assemblies would be an awesome sight and I believe a very effective organizational model to get both engagement in decision making and real buy in into collective action.
Excellent - thanks for posting this.
I just got back from the CUPE BC annual convention. 2013 is the "Year of the Young Worker" and I heard many inspiring young people speak up on their issues this weekend. They mantioned that CUPE's action plan did not mention young workers, despite this allegedly being their "year"; they mentioned that the Young Workers Task Force table was tucked away into the corner; they asked why, in the Year of the Young Worker, the Young Worker Report was scheduled last and unlike;y to reach the floor (it did not); they were aggreived when, after asking for a constitutional amendment which would add a Young Worker VP to the Executive--the third time such an amendment was brought to covention--it was defeated, again; they strained to make the point that if the Union wanted to grow, mobilize and influence life in British Columbia, they had better start listening to Young People.
Maybe next year, I guess.
Young people tend to stir up the status quo by introducing new ideas, challenging established practices, agitating for their rights, etc. They're often vocal and unpredictable as a result. Not the kind of thing bureaucracies like to encourage. When you already have certain rights and privileges established for certain elements of a given population, others who may agitate for theirs are sometimes looked upon as threats to what some have been able to accumulate.
Some young people I've met view unions as insurance for others who aren't pulling their weight, and thus feel unions will make the workplace less efficient and more frustrating. They do not feel like cogs. Instead, they feel they a sense of ownership of the company. Thus, they'll never lose their job unfairly, and they will always survive because they work hard and manage various responsibilities (certainly better than those others that aren't pulling their weight). Shoddy employer practices won't happen to these hard workers, because they are invulnerable. "Unions," they feel, "were good for those in the past when everyone was exploited, but my boss thinks I'm good and I know my job is safe, so I don't need a union -- but that incompetant worker over there likely does -- heck, if unionized we'd be plagued by a bunch of incompetent coworkers like him/her." Most of these workers view the workplace from the perspective of the employer, rather than from the perspective of an employee or worker. They are not "workers", they are "associates".
That is the merit shop lie. I knew a fellow once when I was in construction who worked as a merit shop General Foreman and he bought the line completely until they screwed him out of thousands of dollars of earned income. He then helped us organize a company that had been awarded a big contract. They hired him to run the project and he hired the first set of workers and we immediately applied for certification. They never saw it coming. He became a very staunch union member because he knew that it was all a lie given that if they could screw someone like him they would screw anyone.
Some young people I've met view unions as insurance for others who aren't pulling their weight, and thus feel unions will make the workplace less efficient and more frustrating. They do not feel like cogs. Instead, they feel they a sense of ownership of the company. Thus, they'll never lose their job unfairly, and they will always survive because they work hard and manage various responsibilities (certainly better than those others that aren't pulling their weight). Shoddy employer practices won't happen to these hard workers, because they are invulnerable. "Unions," they feel, "were good for those in the past when everyone was exploited, but my boss thinks I'm good and I know my job is safe, so I don't need a union -- but that incompetant worker over there likely does -- heck, if unionized we'd be plagued by a bunch of incompetent coworkers like him/her." Most of these workers view the workplace from the perspective of the employer, rather than from the perspective of an employee or worker. They are not "workers", they are "associates".
I think you've hit on something here. Bad workers are a general drain on the morale of a workplace, so there is a grain of truth in that unionized workers (even the bad ones) are harder to fire because the contract protects them from arbitrary firing. But having been in a supervisory position for the last few months at my current job, it is because in my view, management is simply too lazy to manage its workforce properly. They would rather have arbitrary power to dismiss whomever they please.
The other issue (and I think I've already mentioned this) is that if said young worker is in school, (s)he probably has career aspirations beyond the current job, so probably thinks, "yeah, this current job sucks, but when I get out of school I'll be able to find a really better one, so this is just something I have to put up with." One of the things I think unions could do is general educational campaigns among youth about labour rights. How much do I get paid if I'm sent home after 2 hours? Do I have to work overtime? What if my boss is really touchy-feely and creeping me out? I remember the RWDSU in Saskatchewan had a page on its website dedicated to these questions. So if the union movement can for a few moments rise above asking questions about declining membership or why young workers don't like them, and really educate young people about their rights, then that will help out. One of the toughest hurdles they will have to make it around, though, is to convince young people that they should be concerned about their workplace now when they plan to be out of there in a few years.
[url=http://basicsnews.ca/2013/12/cupe-national-squashes-unionizing-effort-at... National squashes unionizing effort at Carleton U[/url]
CUPE Local 4600, already representing Teaching Assistants and Contract Instructors on campus, had been working with the Residence Fellows to push for their inclusion into the Local. Their membership of about 2500 workers shares many of the same concerns including overwork, harassment, and job security. On November 21, Colette Proctor, CUPE National Organizing Representative, sent an email stating, “as long as the Local is fine with the possibility of having to cover the group I think we can organize them.” Thirty-one union cards were signed by November 24 reaching the certification requirement, before the President’s Office at CUPE National killed the campaign a week later.
Residence Fellows were succeeding until they received shocking news on December 1 of this year from the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) – which boasts a membership of over 627,000 workers – that the union would not be accepting them after all.The decision came from on high: the President’s office at CUPE National. Once the news surfaced the organizers were outed to management at Carleton. Workers were threatened with being fired for even mentioning the word “union.” Organizers were cut off from any support, leaving them to deal with potentially volatile situations on their own. Isolation and retaliation made their working conditions intolerable.
By December 7, three workers, including Marina Tronina and Miranda Moores, resigned as a result. Because their employment was tied to their room and board on campus, this meant losing their homes as well.