National Post (National Edition)
Bitter truth for unionized is they can be laid off
Job security does not exist in COVID world
The long and protracted negotiations between Ontario’s teachers unions and Doug Ford’s government were viewed with considerable interest nationwide. The province announced a tentative agreement with the last of the four teachers unions, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF), on April 20.
The battle reminded everyone of the havoc unions can create, as well as of the importance of public support, particularly for public sector unions, as both parties loudly promoted their respective positions. The unions also sent a message to the Ford government that they aren’t to be messed with and if their wishes are defied, disruption and chaos will follow which will cost it public support.
This was indeed the case with the unions’ rotating strikes.
The OSSTF was the first teachers’ union to start the one-day rotating walkouts in early December and the last to negotiate a tentative agreement.
Similarly, The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario’s first vice-president Karen Campbell warned the province’s Education Minister Stephen Lecce via its news conferences that he “has an opportunity now to avoid further disruptions” if a deal was struck before a specified date. She went on to confirm that if “these talks are unsuccessful,” the union would resume strike action.
Negotiating in the media, rather than at the collective bargaining table, has provided unions with enormous power, and employers, including governments, often have little control over the narrative when it is a matter of public interest.
Another recent example is the United Nurses of Alberta, which filed a badfaith bargaining complaint against Alberta Health Services (AHS) relating to negotiations for a new provincial collective agreement for most of Alberta’s registered nurses and registered psychiatric nurses.
Along with claiming that AHS failed to disclose its bargaining directives with the union, the complaint references that the AHS was improperly bargaining through the media instead of privately at the bargaining table.
The constant media attention given to labour negotiations has even led gig economy workers to seek the same protections. This is totally misguided. The recent decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board in February found that couriers of food delivery service company Foodora GmbH are dependent contractors and awarded them the right to unionize. This was widely covered in the media.
Foodora couriers are not like nurses or teachers. Most work casually, are students and/or workers looking for part-time ways to supplement their income. If unionized, a portion of their already limited pay will now be paid as dues to their union with no guarantee of wage increases or even of Berlin-based Foodora continuing to operate here.
Indeed, after the union started its organizing drive, Foodora announced that Canada was not the place for it and shut down shop. Coincidence? The union may contest this but that will provide scant solace for those former Foodora workers who are now or soon will be unemployed. Perhaps Foodora was using Canada as a lesson to its workers around the world who might consider signing a union card.
Publicized labour negotiations have led many workers to believe that unionization is some form of salve when it patently is not.
As with Ontario’s teachers, there were no winners when the unions ramped up discord to unprecedented levels during their rotating strikes. The biggest losers were the teachers. They lost pay, the respect of students and parents and, worst of all, placed a cloud over what should be a noble profession. Some of their halo dissipated.
Many teachers disagreed with how these negotiations were handled and would have preferred to return to work much sooner. That power left the hands of each teacher when they joined their respective unions, which operated, as unions do, depending upon their ideological and organizational predilections.
Many criticized the government during the negotiations but the teachers’ unions lost far more political and social capital. Premier Ford’s perceived reasonableness during the COVID-19 crisis has now reinforced the public’s perception of which party was more rational during the teachers’ dispute.
Another problem with unionization has been brought to light during the coronavirus crisis: unionized employees can be laid off. Non-union ones, with some exceptions, cannot be. Laying them off is a constructive dismissal permitting them to sue for full wrongful dismissal damages of usually between three and 24 months.
So if an employer is able to choose which workforce to layoff, will it be unionized or non-union employees? If one costs an average of, say 9-12 months pay to lay off, and the other, nothing at all, what choice do you think it will make? That simple fact, plus the Foodora example, should make Canadian employees think twice when a union tries to organize, promising, as they do, job security.
I will be answering questions regarding COVID-19 and employment in my Saturday columns. Write to me at levitt@levittllp.com.