Labour history

The General Labour Strike Lives On

by
Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock

During a recent lecture, a student asked, “Come on, why do we have to learn about the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike? That was over 100 years ago. There was no income tax and only a few people even had indoor plumbing.”

Society, politics, and the economy have changed drastically in 100 years, but the tools for managing the relationship between capital and labour have not.

The withdrawal of labour, more commonly known as the “strike,” is still the only tool workers have to assert collective power to counterbalance the power of the employer. It may not be as accepted today as it once was, but it is still as effective. Let’s review some of the recent world news headlines:

The strike is becoming the most utilized tool in the union movement arsenal globally as well, which is demonstrated by what is happening in France. The largest general labour strike in decades for France is currently taking place, and have spurred on the following events:

  • Over 800,000 workers followed their union leaders and went out on strike.
  • Schools were shut down.
  • France’s main energy utility had to cut their power generation by 10%.
  • Transit systems had to be severely restricted.

The general labour strike is the largest tool unions have to demonstrate their collective voice. It was used 100 years ago, it is being used now, and it will probably continue to be used in another 100 years if history repeats itself, as it usually does.

This is why knowing about the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike is still relevant, and important to understand labour relations in today’s context.

Discussion Question:

Research the reasons behind the Ontario teachers’ job actions, and France’s general labour strike. Create an executive summary of the causes of the job actions, outlining the similarities and differences between the two labour disputes.

The Capitalist versus the Proletarian: The Adversarial Relationship Continues

by

Any of us who has had some exposure to Labour Relations (LR) knows that the relationship is fundamentally adverse in nature and has been since the industrial revolution of the 1800s.

Labour and management seem to get along for periods of time, but in the end the balance of power shifts and one party takes the route of conflict to try to improve its position against the other side.

There has not been a better illustration of this adverse relationship than the one that played out on Super Bowl Sunday.  As the two football teams battled it out in a very slow and sleepy football game this past February, another battle was being waged between the capitalist systems and the proletarian. The former being represented by General Motors (GM), and the latter by Unifor, the union that represents a majority of Canadian Autoworkers.

GM, the largest employer in Oshawa, announced last November that after 100 years of production, it would be closing down its Oshawa plant at the end of the year.

It is obvious why the union is upset about the plant closing. A union’s reason to exist is to help workers with employment, obtain better wages, as well as fair working conditions for their members. When that is gone so is the union’s purpose. However, this adversarial relationship story goes much deeper.

In 2008, GM received a $10 billion bailout by the provincial and federal governments and according to the Globe and Mail, Canadian taxpayers have been shorted by GM to the tune of $3.5 billion dollars.

Click here to read the Globe and Mail article.

Unifor placed a TV advertisement during the Super Bowl calling out GM and trying to shame the company for their actions. The ad ends with the following comment:

“You may have forgotten our generosity, but we’ll never forget your greed.” – Unifor Advertisement February 2019

To view the advertisement click here.

As we all know, companies are very protective of their brand and do not want to be chastised in public. GM responded by sending a letter, which threatened to sue Unifor.

“While GM respects Unifor’s rights to protest, we cannot condone purposely misleading the Canadian public,” the letter said.

So, the conflict between workers and the capitalist continues, but who is right? Does a company have moral obligations or is it just business? Each one of us in HR will have to reflect on that question.

Discussion Questions

After watching the Unifor GM advertisement and reading GM’s complaints, discuss the validity of the Unifor ad under Canadian Law, and consider the following questions:

  • Is this advertisement legal? If yes, support your answer, if no support your answer.
  • Do you think Unifor’s ad will have any impact? Explain your position.
  • Why do you think Unifor chose to run a boycott campaign?
  • Do you think a union running a product boycott campaign has any effect?

 

 

In Labour Relations History Truly Repeats Itself

by

Sandra Matic/Shutterstock

What is going in the world of labour relations now, and what can we learn from labour history?

Remember learning the significance of the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike?

Click here if you need an LR history refresher.

The 1919 Winnipeg General Strike saw 30,000 people, including telephone operators, postal workers, police, fire fighters, cooks, and contractors take to the streets. But how relevant is this historical event to labour relations today?

In the hundred years that have passed since 1919, business has changed, employers and employment laws have changed, and employment standards have improved markedly for workers in most developed countries. If standards and laws have improved so much, why are general strikes and civil protest still happening?

In 2015, 400,000 public sector employees went on strike in Quebec. In France, a quarter of a million employees went on strike in October 2017, and 10,000 civil servants and railway staff joined forces and went on strike in April 2018.

Let’s look at the most recent strike occurring in France.

Click here to read a short article on this latest strike.

This has moved beyond a typical single employer/employee labour dispute, and is turning into a social movement. It now includes railway workers, teachers, and air traffic controllers. It has become a general strike.

The question is, why in seemingly well-developed societies, like Canada or France, have we not found a better way to resolve labour disputes than taking to the streets in protest? Is it because workers or employers are unreasonable people with unreasonable demands? If so, who determines which side is unreasonable?

Is there a better way? According to Roger Fisher and William Ury from Harvard University, there is.

Click here to read a summary of their book, Getting to Yes.

Getting to Yes talks about BATNA, an acronym coined by Fisher and Ury, which stands for the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). Fisher and Ury emphasize that positional bargaining is not the most effective way to reach an agreement, and that it can actually do more harm than good. With positional bargaining one side must win and the other must lose. This is no way for employers and unions to treat each other in the 21st century.

Getting to Yes has been around for 40 years, yet employers and unions are still using positional bargaining. Why? Perhaps many unions and employers do not feel it meets their needs.

Does history repeat itself? It certainly seems to with Labour Relations. Where are we 100 years after the Winnipeg general strike? It looks like we’re in the very same place. Perhaps it is time to move past the adversarial model of Labour Relations. The question is, do employers and unions have the will to do that?

 

Discussion Questions:

  1. Read this summary of the concepts in Getting to Yes.
  2. Discuss why unions and management might be against using Getting to Yes principles.
  3. Can you describe specific situations where it would be more beneficial to use Getting to Yes concepts, such as interest-based bargaining, rather than traditional positional bargaining?

 

Are the Teamsters the new Luddites?

by

Oh, how workplace relationships have changed since the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s.

Or have they? Are the Teamsters the modern-day equivalent of the 18th century Luddites? These are very interesting questions for a Human Resources practitioner to ponder.

Granted, with the rise of unions in the 19th century, there is greater employment and safety laws in the 20th century, and greater government regulations to protect workers. Due to this, the quality of working life for the individual workers has improved greatly. But has the fundamental relationship between workers and employers really changed?

That thought brings us to current events that reinforce that the fundamental relationship between employers and employees in the 21st century is the same as the 18th century.

Here is a brief labour relations history lesson for those of you who don’t know who the Luddites were, and need a refresher about the Teamsters.

Let’s start with getting to know the Teamsters. Here is a brief background right from their website:

  • The Teamsters are America’s largest, most diverse union. In 1903, the Teamsters started as a merger of the two leading team driver associations. These drivers were the backbone of America’s robust economic growth, but they needed to organize to wrestle their fair share from greedy corporations. Today, the Union’s task is exactly the same.
  • The Teamsters have over 1.4 million union members.

Now, who are the Luddites?

The term Luddite now refers to an individual who is against the effects of technological change. To be more historically correct, the Luddites were against new technology that changed working methods that reduced jobs. In other words, they were against automation. To read a history of the Luddites, click here.

In reality, the Luddites were British craftsmen who smashed and burned the new technology of weaving machines that was taking away their highly skilled jobs. The Luddites wanted the government to ban the new weaving machines but they did not reach their objective. The government passed a law that anyone who damaged a machine would be put to death.

What are the Teamsters trying to accomplish two hundred years later? They are trying to prevent a loss of trucking jobs to drones and autonomous vehicles. Currently, the Teamsters are in collective bargaining negotiations with UPS and have placed demands on the table that UPS will not use drones or autonomous vehicle to deliver packages.  Click here to read greater details about the UPS/ Teamsters negotiations.

The Teamsters have not acted the same way as the Luddites. They have not attempted to sabotage, smash, or burn the new technology. They have been more successful than the Luddites in obtaining political action. The Teamsters have:

So, the fundamental relationship between employers and employees has not changed. Each party wants to protect their interests and increase their share of the economic pie.  Will the Teamsters be successful against the rise of new technology, unlike the Luddites?  Only time will tell, but past history is not on the Teamsters side.

Discussion Questions:

What are your thoughts – should government step in to prevent automation from taking away jobs?

Research the advancements on Artificial Intelligence (AI). What jobs are experts predicting will disappear in the next 20 years? How is HR and society as a whole going to respond to these changes?