Submissions to ‘right-to-work’ study committee fight against anti-union Alberta government n the province of Alberta the labour movement is fighting back against the Conservative government’s agenda of intro- ducing “right-to-work” legisla- tion. Last March the government vot- ed to study such legislation as it further its attempts to deunionize the province. “Right-to-work” legislation prohibits unions and employers from negotiat- ing collective agreements which pro- vide the union with security that all members of a bargaining units will be- come union members and pay dues. It allows individuals the right to opt out of the union but yet remain entitled to all of the wages and benefits that the union bargains for. Although Alberta has the lowest rates of unionization in the country, the Klein government is moving even further to the right to appease its big business supporters. The drive for “right-to-work” legisla- tion has received large support from a new organization know as Citizens Against Forced Unionism (CAFU) which is a front for the National Citi- zens Coalition (NCC). Both are ultra right-wing organizations which re- ceive most of their funding by big business and not from individual citi- zens. The Alberta Economic Develop- ment Authority has been given a key Only about 20 of 200 submissions support ‘right-to-work’ role to play in the “right-to-work” study. Submissions for and against new legislation are being sent to it as a review committee consisting of Klein’s government, opposition mem- bers, business and labour representa- tives are going through the sub- missions as well. So far over 200 submissions have been sent to the review committee and only about 20 of them support “right-to-work” legislation. Mike Pisak, President of I.W.A. CANADA Local 1-207 says that the Klein government has been mislead- ing the public by saying that “right-to- work” legislation will bring additional investment to the province and in- crease the standard of living for Alber- tans. “The evidence that the labour movement has presented to the gov- ermment is overwhelming in its con- demnation of ‘right-to-work’ legis- “lation,” says Brother Pisak.” In terms of productivity, the economic well be- ing of the population and worker health and safety, ‘right-to-work’ laws are a bust.” “We must stop this government’s agenda,” says Pisak. “They don’t give a damn about workers and their push to union bust is becoming more agres- sive. We cannot stand by and allow Klein to turn this province into a low wage ghetto.” Looking at only three of the submis- sions to the review committee, a solid case is made against the advocates of “right-to-work” laws. BETTER WAGES, SAFER WORK CONDITIONS, HEALTHIER PEOPLE ri In a submission by Local 1-207 it is pointed out that union workforces of- fer more cooperation between work- ers and management and less authori- tarian rule by employers. Union work- places also have lower turnover rates and higher skiled workforces. A study at Carnegie Mellon Univer- sity in Pittsburgh, which examined over 1100 metal machine shops shown that unionized shops have 31% more productivity. Research from Harvard University shows that over- all, union establishments are more productive than comparable non- union establishments, although profits may be lower. Figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics in 1992 showed a 21% increase in job fatality rates in “right-to-work” states vs. states where free collective bargaining is honoured. There were 9.0 deaths per 100,000 people in the “right-to-work” states vs. 6.1 deaths per 100,000 in free states. “Unions endorse occupational health and safety programs,” says Brother Pisak. “We are a presence that employers must reckon with and we keep them honest as much as pos- sible.” Workers Compensation Board Sta- tistics from B.C. bear out this fact. A logging fatality study between 1981-87 revealed that non-union workers were 8 times more likely to be killed on the job that union members. As far as prosperity and well-being of society goes, in the United States (which has 21 “right-to-work” states and 29 free collective bargaining states) the “right-to work” states have more poverty, lower per capita in- comes, higher infant mortality rates and poorer health coverage. Poverty is at least 15% higher in these types of states. Twelve of the 20 poorest states have “right-to-work” laws, while a study by a national life insurance company showed the worst population health existed in these states. While looking at composite scores on kids’ health it is revealed that “right-to-work” states make up 11 of the 15 worst and free states make up 11 of the 15 best. When looking at wages, a 1993 study showed that free states had wages that were 18% higher ($2,813.00 USD per year). The workforce in those states were more highly educat- ed and more highly skilled. In 1993-94 the free states spent more than the na- tional average on education. TAKE A LOOK AT NEW ZEALAND In a submission by the Alberta Fed- eration, the example of labour law re- form is set forward as an example of what could happen to unions in Alber- ta if “right-to-work” laws are invoked. The 110,000 member Alberta Fed says that “right-to-work” laws in effect legally prohibit unions and employers from including union security clauses in collective agreements. There is a government imposed limitation of freedom of contract laws. That has been what has happened in New Zealand, where labour has lost a lot a ground since 1991 when the Employment Contract Acts was intro- duced by the conservative National Party. The labour laws were deregu- lated to favour “individual” employ- ment contracts over collective agree- ments. Unions lost effective legal recogni- tion - dues could no longer be deduct- ed from payrolls and union represen- tatives were no longer guaranteed access to worksites. Unions now have to show that there is membership support for each and every step of the collective bargaining process by filing documentation while employers are completely free to en- tice workers away from unions. 12/LUMBERWORKER/NOVEMBER, 1995 e The Ralph Klein government wants to turn the province into a low wage econ- omy zone. Employers no longer have to bar- gain in good faith and can lay off workers for refusing to accept “take- it-or-leave-it” offers. The effect of “right-to-work” legisla- tion has been to devestate union membership rolls. Today there are ap- proximately 380,000 union members in the country, down from 720,000 in 1990 prior to the Employment Con- tracts Act. There has also been a startling loss of full time employment in the coun- try. In 1986 there was one part time job for every five full time positions. Now there is one for every four full time jobs. In 1987, 19.7% of unemployed work- ers were considered “long term unem- ployed.” By 1993 that number in- creased to 50%. So the “right-to-work” laws did not increase employment. Wages have risen slightly, not keep- ing pace with inflation and disposable income has dropped most severely for ‘Right-to-work’ states have higher rates of poverty and lower quality health care lower income groups. Two tiered (union vs. non-union) wage structures have appeared. As the result of this labour law re- form, labour relations deteriorated. By 1992 strikes in the manufacturing sector had tripled. Ken Douglas, President of the New Zealand Confederation of Trade Unions said militancy was on the in- crease because workers had lost legal processes and structures for the de- fense of their interests. The government’s own 1992 survey of employers revealed that the majori- ty didn’t believe that the 1991 laws im- proved workers’ rights to choose their unions. And recent statistics have shown that 29% of all collective agree- ments in the country were reached without worker input. WANNA BE LIKE THE UNITED STATES? If Alberta wants to be like “right-to- work” states south of the border it should look at some facts, says the Al- berta Fed. A full 17.8% of the population in these states can’t afford basic medical insurance. This is mostly due to the fact that if workers have no union rep- resentation, they are less likely to have such insurance. “Right-to-work” states spend $1,300.00 less per pupil than free col- lective bargaining states do on an an- nual basis and their drop-out rates are 16% lower. Poverty and crime are also higher in “right-to-work” states. Four of the top five crime states have anti worker laws. In these states overall rates of poverty are at 16.3% of the population while the tax base to government is 29% lower than free states. IF IT AIN’T BROKE DON’T FIX IT Alberta labour lawyer Robert Philp says that there is no proven economic advantage to “right-to-work” laws and that the current laws aren’t causing any difficulty - so where’s the beef? In his submission to the govern- ment, Philp, who represents Local 1- 207 on numberous cases, says that current labour law already allows for both open and closed shop union se- curity arrangements and that they must be negotiated. There are really four types of union security clausess that can be negotiat- ed in the province. The additional two are the union shop and the Rand For- mula. In the Rand Formula, those who do. not want to be members of the union have to pay dues to the organization as they get all of the benefits of union membership. By far the most common form of union security clause, of which near] all LW.A. collective agreements have is the union shop, where worker must become members of the union and pay dues within a certain time period. Closed shop agreements are rare in the province and are common when the union guarantees the employers a certain level of worker expertise prior to hiring. Philp questions why unions should represent workers who don’t want to join the union, yet will sit back a draw all of the benefits.