Besides, "freedom of choice" is one of those cute slogans that sounds good but doesn't actually stand up to serious examination.

Indeed.

No. What is required is that they conduct a fair investigations and make a reasonable assessment of her liklihood of winning her case. If the odds are strongly against winning, the Union can chose not to proceed.

Cannalee, I think hospital working conditions are better here. Speaking of my wife's place, I have to say that while the nurses we know gripe sometimes, there really is an atmosphere of mutual respect beween hospital administration and nurses. She's been there going on forty years, and is proud of the hospital, of the care patients get, and of the work she does there. We do credit the union for a lot of the mutual respect I mentioned. The nurses' work commands individual respect but, organized, they get the kind of respect that power commands. They don't run the place, but they have a strong say in how they get run.

There are three hospitals in town, one without union representation. That's the one where a nurse, after a 12-hour stint (and that after a couple of similar days), made an IV drug error that killed one of her patients a couple years ago. I don't know to blame lack of union at the hosp for her error, but I do know that afterward there were changes in work hours rules there that had already been negotiated at the other two hospitals, in the interests of nurses and patient safety.

I hope you and your coworkers can organize at your place eventually. You clearly deeply care about your work, you have integrity about it. You deserve more respect than your description of the situation shows you getting.

Oh, how so?

You sound like officials in some Communist country trying to convince its citizenry that democracy sounds good, but doesn't actually work in practice.

Where have I advocated undoing all that labor unions have done in this country? Where have I advocated doing away with labor unions?

All I have said is that when a person goes to work for some company, they should have the right to join, or to not join, the union.

Why are you people so insistent that giving the people that freedom of choice somehow is being anti-union? The only thing I can conclude is that you're worried that if people had that choice, no one would join the union and the union would collapse. Well, gee, if the union is so wonderful, everyone will join it, so you have nothing to worry about.

You know quite a bit about communists, don't you, scifi?

You people are so insistent that people should not have the right to not join a union if they don't want to. You are insisting that if there is a union, they MUST join it, whether they want to or not.
Can you explain that?!

"We people" have done no such thing.
Not much point discussing this if all you do is present red herrings.

Half of Ontario public elementary school teachers walk out
'Super Tuesday' 1-day strikes involve 35,000 teachers
CBC News
Posted: Dec 18, 2012 6:06 AM ET
Last Updated: Dec 18, 2012 9:19 AM ET

Thousands of public elementary teachers are taking part in day-long strikes in the Greater Toronto Area today in opposition of controversial legislation that gives the government the right to claw back benefits, freeze pay and quash future job actions.

Tuesday's strikes, dubbed by some as "Super Tuesday," will be the teachers' single biggest day of action in a series of one-day rotating strikes that began last week.

The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario has given three days’ notice for each of the single-day strikes.

But Tuesday is the biggest day of strikes so far, involving public elementary schools in Toronto, Durham Region, Peel Region, Greater Essex County, Lambton-Kent, Grand Erie, Near North and Waterloo Region.

More than 35,000 teachers will be involved in Tuesday’s walkouts, or nearly half of the more than 76,000 teachers and education professionals that ETFO represents.

In Toronto, there will be pickets at most schools, the headquarters of the Toronto District School Board, the Ministry of Education and at the offices of four Liberal leadership candidates.

As a result of the walkouts on Tuesday, the Toronto District School Board will close all of its elementary and junior high schools to students. Buses will not be running either. Day care centres in elementary schools will remain open.

About 3,000 teachers walked out in Windsor-Essex, leaving 24,000 students affected, with the city opening day camps and other activities for students.

The TDSB had sent a letter to parents earlier this month advising them of the possibility of a strike in Toronto, which ETFO gave formal notice of on Saturday.

“This is the largest of the one-day strikes we’ve seen yet,” CBC's Trevor Dunn reported on Tuesday morning from the TDSB head offices.

The strike has left some working parents in a pinch for child care. To meet the need, city child-care programs will operate at arenas and pools, while the Second City comedy theatre is holding a youth improv camp.

“Parents do have options, but this will not be an easy day for them," said Dunn.

West of the city, in Peel Region, teachers will picket 45 schools, the Peel Board office and the office of two Liberal leadership candidates.

In Durham Region, there will be no pickets at schools. Instead, teachers will hold a rally at Oshawa’s Memorial Park.

Looming deadline

The ongoing walkouts by public elementary teachers across the province come in advance of a Dec. 31 deadline the governing Liberals have set for union locals to reach deals with their school boards.

Should the deadline pass without agreements in place, the government will impose a deal that will freeze the wages of many instructors and cut back benefits.

Premier Dalton McGuinty has said the government will permit the current strikes to go ahead, as long as they do not persist beyond a single day in each case.

Speaking Tuesday on CBC Toronto's Metro Morning radio show, EFTO president Sam Hammond hinted that the union will stage more one-day walkouts after the Dec. 31 deadline.

“We’re keeping all of our options on the table," he told host Matt Galloway. "If this government imposes a collective agreement ... we will implement a one-day political protest. We will cross that bridge when we get to it, we are keeping all of our options on the table as we move forward.”

Education Minister Laurel Broten said a walkout past the Dec. 31 deadline would be illegal.

“It’s incredibly disappointing to hear Sam talk about what would be an illegal wildcat strike," she said. "We will use every tool available to us."

A new round of day-long strikes will affect scores of public elementary schools in the Halton, Bluewater and Algoma boards on Wednesday. The next day, more walkouts will occur in the Limestone, Superior-Greenstone, Thames Valley and Upper Canada board elementary schools.

CBC News will be covering the job actions throughout the day online, on radio and on CBC Toronto television starting at 5 p.m.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/s ... esday.html

You people are so insistent that people should not have the right to not join a union if they don't want to. You are insisting that if there is a union, they MUST join it, whether they want to or not.
Can you explain that?!


If you have a job and decide you want to just take a day off and your boss fires you for it, isn't he interfering with your freedom of choice not to go to work? Can't the boss say it's his freedom of choice to fire you is being infringed if you complain? When you go to work for a non-union employer, you sacrifice your freedom of choice to him. He dictates to you everything about the work and your compensation package and you have no freedom of choice.

I do have to disagree with the concept of closed shops on a personal level. That is my choice but I have no right to impose my choice on others, ie those who wish to have a closed shop.
However, if those who choose to not join a bargaining unit expect the same benefits and protections offered by the union they should pay union dues regardless. They still have chosen to not join, hence no loss of that "freedom of choice".
Those who object to paying dues should also have that choice but when they get paid minimum wage instead of $20.00/hour and have no protections and/or benefits such as health care and pension they need to shut up about it.

A little Orwell with your union dues?
An Alberta labour law ruling stands freedom of association on its head
Karen Selick
Winnipeg Free Press, December 9, 2010

Historically, labour unions have done a remarkable job of persuading the general public that unions toil for the benefit of the average worker. But in a case currently unfolding in Alberta, a group of 29 average workers has rejected that thesis, and the union doesn’t like it.

The heretics are employees of Old Dutch Foods Ltd., a Canadian company that manufactures potato chips. Unionized in 1971 by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCWU), the company has steadfastly refused to force its workers to join the union, or to contribute union dues. In labour law parlance, the company has insisted on remaining an “open shop” and rejecting the so-called “Rand formula”.

The Rand formula requires all employees in a unionized workplace to pay union dues, even if they choose not to join the union. It’s supposed to prevent workers from “free riding” on the union’s efforts to improve their lot.

Six provinces and the federal government have made the Rand formula mandatory through legislation. Four provinces, including Alberta, have not.

Last year, the UFCWU took Old Dutch before the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB) seeking a declaration that Alberta’s failure to incorporate the Rand formula into law violates the freedom of association guarantee in subsection 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In a ruling that stands the concept of freedom of association on its head, the ALRB granted the union’s request.

Alberta’s Attorney General is seeking judicial review of that decision. Meanwhile, the 29 Old Dutch employees recently obtained party status in that proceeding. The union was infuriated by this decision that will allow the workers to speak for themselves, and is appealing it—thereby corroborating the 29 employees’ concern that the union’s interests are incongruent with their own. The appeal is scheduled for late January.

But on to the main issue: freedom of association. The Supreme Court of Canada has declared in previous cases that freedom of association under the Charter also includes the logical corollary: the freedom not to associate.

Faced with that case law, the ALRB nevertheless contrived to reach the astonishing conclusion that provincial legislatures are constitutionally compelled to force individual workers to either join unions or—tantamount to the same thing—pay union dues just as members do. How’s that again? Freedom is compulsion? Orwell, anyone?

The decision meanders around through concepts of group rights and majoritarianism, eventually declaring that “the choice made by the majority of employees to have a bargaining agent” somehow trumps the choice of individuals not to have one.

But if the Charter guarantee of free association is to mean anything sensible at all, surely first and foremost it must guarantee the rights of individuals not to be compulsorily assimilated into larger groups merely by being outvoted. After all, if two men corner a woman in a dark alley and force her to have sex with them because they, the majority, have voted in favour of it, that would still be rape, not the exercise of their group right to freedom of association.

The UFCWU argues that the law compels it to provide representation for all employees, even non-union members, so that’s why non-members should be compelled to pay union fees. But this is merely an example of one bad law begetting another. Instead of compounding past mistakes and granting the union’s request, the more logical course of action would be to repeal the union’s obligation to provide services for non-members.

Unions also argue that they need the Rand formula for “security” of revenues. But the corporations with whom they bargain have no such security. They have to compete to win business, by devising attractive combinations of services and prices that will persuade customers to part voluntarily with their money. Why shouldn’t unions have to do the same?

In 2006, the European Court of Human Rights declared mandatory union membership a violation of the freedom of association guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. Consequently, 47 European countries no longer have closed shop laws. Another European court decision essentially prohibited unions from collecting fees from non-members if those fees were going to be used or capable of being used for political purposes.

Watching Canadian unions attempt to buck the European trend to greater employee freedom, one can’t help but conclude that the unions now exist in order to maintain their empires, rather than to serve the interests of the workers they are supposed to represent.

This article was excerpted from The Lawyers Weekly, published by LexisNexis Canada Inc.

http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundati ... le.php/211

It's really sad to see organizations and especially individuals kowtowing to the corporate agenda. For nearly a hundred years workers and their families enjoyed a comfortable living. A large and sustainable middle class came into existence and employers had to pay attention to worker rights, safety and welfare. Then, about 20 years ago, this laughably named right-to-work movement started to take hold. That corporate apologists would latch onto it wasn't surprising but, incredibly, they were able to package and sell it to a growing segment of the middle class as a "freedoms" issue. What's absolutely astonishing is that, even as they watch their incomes dwindle, their benefits dry-up or get priced beyond their means, their workplace lives and family welfare becomes more and more precarious and subject to the whims of some corporate minion so many of the shrinking middle class support their own demise. Some of them actually believe they have negotiating power equal to that of their employer. Frankly, as an employer myself, I'm not sure I would want to hire anybody that deluded.

Frankly, as an employer myself, I'm not sure I would want to hire anybody that deluded.

Many of those employers will be hard-pressed to make any profits if no one can purchase what they make.

If you're a valuable employee, the employer won't fire you just because you took a day off from work. I take days off from work all the time for various reasons (dental appointments, doctors appointments, etc.). I bring a note from the doctor's or dentist's office and give it to my employer.

If you're not a good employee and the employer wants to fire you, then that should be his right. The solution for not getting fired is to work hard and be an asset to the company.

Here's a good employee.

http://childminers.blogspot.ca/2008/04/ ... iners.html

If you're not a good employee and the employer wants to fire you, then that should be his right. The solution for not getting fired is to work hard and be an asset to the company

But that interferes with your freedom to not be a good employee. I mean the definition of "freedom" that's been touted by the right-to-work folks is to be able to take the good stuff without having to shoulder the responsibilities. Union representation in the U.S. has dropped from close to 40% to about 10%. At the same time that has happened wages and benefits have stagnated and dropped the same way they grew as unions gained in strength throughout the first 3/4's of the 20th century.

Halifax airport commissionaires share $500K in back pay
Retired Mountie triggered the court case
Paul Withers CBC News
Posted: Dec 18, 2012 4:51 PM AT
Last Updated: Dec 18, 2012 4:50 PM AT

Christmas has come early for 400 commissionaires who work at Halifax Stanfield International Airport.

On Tuesday, they started receiving cheques for nearly $500,000 in back pay won in a four-year legal battle with Commissionaires Nova Scotia.

"I'm very happy, obviously," said David Crouse, a commissionaire from 2007 to 2010. His complaint triggered the case. Tuesday morning he was holding a cheque for $3,300.

"It's personal satisfaction. The little guy won over the big guy. It's infrequent a small person gets as far as we did in this," Crouse told CBC News.

Backed by the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), Crouse argued that since he worked at a federal airport he was entitled to overtime and benefits under the federal labour code.

Commissionaires Nova Scotia claimed its airport employees should be paid under less generous Nova Scotia labour laws.

It relented earlier this year after losing two federal court rulings and a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada to refuse to hear its appeal.

PSAC says the payout is slightly less than $500,000. Twelve of its members have died since the case began. Their estates will get the back pay.

Commissionaires Nova Scotia would not disclose the payout nor how much it paid in legal fees to fight the case.

"It certainly is costly but sometimes it's part of doing business. We've planned for it and we're just fine," CEO Mike Brownlow told CBC News.

Brownlow thanked commissionaires for their patience and described the lengthy episode as a learning experience.

"We do hope this is the conclusion," he said.

Commissionaires Nova Scotia rented a room at an airport hotel for Tuesday and Wednesday so employees could collect the back pay.

Crouse was the first of dozens to arrive Tuesday morning. He posed for pictures and shook hands with other commissionaires as they arrived to pick up their cheques.

"It's a nice Christmas present. I've got lots of places for the money," said Crouse, who is also a retired RCMP officer.

PSAC says the case proves the value of a union.

"Without us being unionized this is not possible. We'd never be able to put it forward," said Miles States, president of PSAC Local 85100.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot ... eques.html

The problem with this for the Commissionaires is that they are now stuck with the Federal Labour Code. They can't bounce back and forth between the federal and provincial codes. Overall, the provincial codes are far better for employees than the federal one. For example, a good many of them will lose their jobs as the Commissionaires company adjusts to the "employment equity" provisions of the federal code. The company will have to stock-up on women and people of colour or lose the contract at the airport. There is no phase in period. That adjustment can only be accomplished by terminating existing employees.

Would they not have to buy them out rather than simply "terminate"?

Well, actually it was me who said that, not Oskar, so I'm the anti-democratic communist I guess. Its a pity you didn't read what I said, then you would have got the next bit.
"Ever seen the movie "Sophies Choice"?

Some "choices" don't enhance your "freedom" at all. About 15 years ago two people from my city were given a "choice" they otherwise wouldn't of had. So I guess that means they more "freedom". Their choice? Well, they were held at gunpoint by a couple of prison escapees who gave them the "choice" of being shot or jumping off a cliff. Thats an extreme example, but there's a whole class of "choices" that are pernicious.

There's another class of choices that are just plain annoying. "Do you want fries with that" springs to mind.

There's another class of choices that are "moral hazzards". The choice not to pay union dues and still get all the benefits negotiated by the union is one of those.

The choice not to pay union dues and still get all the benefits negotiated by the union is one of those.

That's commonly called a deadbeat.