Actualités

Political activity is an awkward topic in our union.  Although we belong to a union and see the value in supporting pro-labour policies, we also see ourselves as professionals.  We feel we should be able to stay above the fray, get the work done and the rest will take care of itself.  I?m writing to tell you this is no longer the case.

The roots of this union are in the federal public service and there are good reasons for any public service union to remain politically neutral.  The most obvious is that whoever is in power, we will need to develop a productive and professional working relationship with them.  This is best achieved by remaining apolitical at election time.  That?s why it hasn?t been our practice to publicly support or denounce any particular political party.  We prefer a more pragmatic approach which has been to work with the government of the day (to the extent possible). Although this makes perfect sense, it is simply not good enough anymore.

To be candid, our current Conservative government is the most anti-union and anti-labour government Canada has seen in decades and there is no sign of them stopping.  Need evidence? Let?s begin with a look at their track record when it comes to labour disputes and collective bargaining in Canada. In June 2011 they threatened Air Canada ticket agents with back-to-work legislation within days of them going on strike.  The Conservatives claimed the economic recovery was so fragile that the country could not afford the strike of 3800 ticket agents.  Of course, there wasn?t a shred of evidence to support this claim so why put them back to work so quickly?

Here?s another example.  In an effort to settle the lockout orchestrated by their friends at Canada Post, Minister of Labour Lisa Raitt appointed Arbitrator Guy Dufort to chair the arbitration panel. The only problem is that Mr Dufort has very strong ties to the Conservative party.  So deep are these roots that even the Federal Court of Canada found there was a ?reasonable apprehension of bias? with his appointment.  Thankfully the Federal Court of Canada understands the principles of procedural fairness even if the federal government does not.

Our federal government members are well aware of this government?s approach to collective bargaining in the public service so I won?t dwell on  it here.  But having successfully destroyed union-management labour relations in the federal public service, they now want to go one step further and micromanage collective bargaining at the CBC by appointing a Treasury Board representative to participate in collective bargaining. I?ve been at the negotiating table with the Treasury Board. I know first-hand how difficult it is to reach agreement on the simplest of issues.  It?s hard to imagine their input in CBC negotiations to be anything but unproductive.

Not content with micromanaging industrial relations in Canada, they are now targeting the only organizations legally entitled to represent a group of workers: trade unions. Their first volley was Bill C-377 which would have forced all trade unions regardless of labour jurisdiction to publicly disclose private financial information to the general public (read employers).  But professional associations such as law societies, medical associations, engineering societies and other organizations whose dues are also tax deductible were exempt from the application of C-377.  As it turns out, Bill C-377 was so badly conceived the Conservative dominated Senate refused to pass it in its current form and sent it back to the House of Commons with several amendments. 

More recently, the government introduced another piece of anti-labour legislation (again through a private member?s bill).  If passed,  Bill C-525 will make it much more difficult to organize workers and certify unions in federal workplaces.  Moreover, it will make it much easier for a minority of employees to decertify existing unions.  The proposed law deems an absent vote as a vote against trade union certification. Under this proposed law, indifference alone could cause you to lose your collective bargaining rights ? and your collective agreement.

Something that is surely to be introduced before long (probably by way of some unwitting backbench MP) is an attack on the ?Rand formula?. The Rand formula (named after Supreme Court Justice Rand) ensures that all employees (whether or not they wish to be union members) pay dues to the union that negotiated their collective agreement. Neo-conservatives believe that represented employees shouldn?t be forced to pay dues but should still be entitled to representation. Most people understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch.  However with today?s Conservatives it?s not about what makes sense; it?s about how to weaken those that disagree with you.  This type of legislation already exists in several states of the US as ?right-to-work? legislation.  These so-called ?right to work? (for less) laws serve a single purpose: make it more difficult for a group of employees to use their collective strength and negotiate better terms and conditions of work.  This is accomplished by choking off the funding of unions while forcing these unions to represent the very individuals acting against the union?s interests.

So why does this all matter?  The vast majority of Canadians work for someone else. How you get paid, when you get paid and in some cases even how much you get paid are all determined by the various federal and provincial employment laws.  It worth reading these laws to understand how much better your collective rights compare to these individual rights.  Since politicians enact these laws, their actions can affect you directly and personally.  So while IBEW Local 2228 remains politically neutral you shouldn?t be.

Daniel J Boulet

Business Manager / Financial Secretary