Poor pay, poor conditions (dust, knee strain, etc.), no benefits! Where's my shop steward?? |
Today I'm disturbed by government
efforts to shrink the influence of unions, part of an ongoing
phenomenon in North America that you already know about if you watch
the news. I'm disturbed because I just read Kathleen
Monk's blog post on the subject, and if you don't have a lot of
time, click on the link and read her post instead of this one.
My first job was as a lumber yard
go-fer. I was told what I would be paid ($100/month, 1960) and my
employment conditions were laid out for me. I went from that to
working for the Bank of Montreal at a salary of $1200/yr., also laid
on without my input. One day the accountant told me to go out and buy
some new shirts because my frayed collars didn't look seemly for a
business person. I couldn't afford shirts, even in the singular. From
there I went on to Teachers' College and a teaching career, all of it
as a member of a union. I served as a local president, was involved
in negotiations of salaries and working conditions and as a result of
past negotiations, enjoyed health benefits, sick leaves etc., that
would have been unheard of at the B of M at the time. My wife and I
now benefit from pensions that wouldn't have been ours had it not
been for collective bargaining.
I don't have to go into the role of
collective bargaining rights in freeing society from child labour
practices, starvation take-it-or-leave-it pay, abominable working
conditions, etc.; this should be common knowledge to anyone who paid
attention in high school History. What the past has shown us is that
commerce and industry leadership/ownership doesn't like to see
employees having a say in their work lives; it compromises control,
impinges on profits. If unions are being systematically weakened
these days, we ought to check out who's cheering; it certainly isn't
the burger flipper at McDonalds or the welder at a non-union shop, except . . .
. . . except that there's been a steady
campaign of union demonization going on for years, so much so that
even people who have benefited from the social improvements made
through collective bargaining are bad-mouthing the hands that fed
them. If a service like garbage collection is suspended by a strike,
it's the union's fault; if the stoppage results from a lockout, it's
also the union's fault for making unreasonable demands. Somehow,
gouging corporations and businesses have won the public relations
war, a sad phenomenon that unions will have to find better ways to
counteract.
For me, the bottom line is this: the
employer who invests and the employee who sweats are equals, humans
in a world where racism, gender-ism, ageism, etc. are not permitted. That
employees should have the right to sit across the table from
employers and negotiate the conditions of work and their remuneration
seems a human right that ought to be obvious, unless we insist that
the world be organized vertically.
It's noteworthy that as unions are
losing their effectiveness—generally through legislation and bad
press—inequality is increasing.
The connection is obvious.
Do read Kathleen Monk.
Thanks for writing this George. We've just read Ari Shavit's My Promised Land and are now reading reading Buffalo Shout: Salmon Cry. The issues are really the same as the union issue. "We" want to have unquestioned power over the lives of others. We want to make "them" invisible except as "assets" that "we" can use. What is being done to workers is not different in kind from what was done to aboriginals by settler society, or that is being done to Palestinians by Israeli settlers. We don't have the financial resources to do the image-making that the big corporations with their "small-government" allies, but we do have social networks through which a statement can be made. Let's make it.
ReplyDelete