Union

Organizing Change at Walmart

by

 

One large, red sphere weighs one end of a gray balance beam down
Mark Carrel/Shutterstock

Walmart is a well-known discount retailer with stores across Canada and around the world.

Walmart is also well known for its long history of opposition to unionization within its employee population. There have been a few attempts to unionize Walmart stores in Canada, most notably in Quebec and Saskatchewan. These attempts have not been successful to date, and have resulted in a continued commitment by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada (UFCW Canada) to try to have Walmart employees represented by their union.

UFCW Canada is affiliated with UFCW International, which is one of North America’s largest private sector unions with over 1.3 million members. Even with these significant numbers, the union has not been able to breach the Walmart fortress of resistance to unionization in Canada, across North America, or at an international level.

Does the absence of unionization mean that the employee workforce is content?

Apparently not.

Continued media reports chronicle the dissatisfaction of Walmart workers in relation to their wages and working conditions. In the absence of a formal union, some employees have formed an ‘association’ called OUR Walmart (Organization United for Respect) at Walmart in an attempt to continue the fight for changes to working conditions.  However, this association, while backed by the UFCW, is not a formal union, and as such, does not have the ability to represent the workers through the power of a collective bargaining process. It does, however, provide the opportunity to exercise more power for employees by expanding these associations across the global Walmart chain.

Recently, the American component of OUR Walmart was able to join with its Chinese counterpart in an attempt to increase its power base. The American and Chinese workers wanted to impose a coordinated ‘strike’ action at an international level on the retailer in order to stop a scheduling system change.

Click here to see a clip on OUR Walmart’s progress at an international level.

As we note in this clip, the expansion of the collective voice through the power of association is a critical element in an attempt to force the employer to change its practices. However, the clip also identifies the key weaknesses of a non-unionized employee association. This weakness is the lack of real, legal status and power.

Without the protection of a formal union, employees at Walmart have no legitimate power that is provided by the legal parameters of the right to association and to bargain collectively. Walmart, as an employer, is under no legal obligation to recognize any informal employee association. It can choose to listen to employee concerns or it can choose not to. If employees decide to leave their work for a day, the employer can decide not to have them back at work the next day. In Canada, in the absence of a collective agreement, the employer is bound by the provisions of common law and legislated employment standards and has the power to run the workplace as it sees fit.

Until there is a shift in power through the establishment of legitimate union authority, it seems that the status quo between employer and worker relations at Walmart will continue to be maintained.

For an extensive exploration of the labour-management struggles between Walmart, UFCW and OUR Walmart, click here.

Discussion Questions:

  1. What benefit does Walmart gain from having non-unionized workers?
  2. Identify how an employee group could gain power through unionization.
  3. As an HR practitioner, identify five key steps that you would recommend to an employer who was facing the possibility of unionization within its workforce.

Interesting Agreements

by

 

Vintage poster for Workers Rights
Source: Tribalium/Shutterstock

Recently in Ontario, the provincial government and the public sector union representing correctional workers came to a historic negotiated agreement.  This agreement categorizes and recognizes the work of the bargaining unit members as essential services, on par with police and first responders.

It also means that the union gave up, through the negotiation process, the right to strike.  This guarantees that wages and financial benefits will be determined by a neutral, third-party arbitrator in the future.

Click here to read the Article

Click here to read OPSEU’s announcement of this historic agreement.

As we have learned through our labour relations studies, the right to strike is a basic principle for unionized workers.  Further, it is a powerful leveraging tool during the collective bargaining process.  A strike threat applies legitimate pressure on the employer in order to come to a negotiated agreement.  If there is no successful conclusion through a negotiated agreement, the parties will be faced with a service shutdown through strike action by the union or a lockout by the employer.

Why would any union give up what appears to be a fundamental right?  What would tie the parties together to work toward a successful conclusion in this case?

Common interests.

While we are not privy to the details of what was a very lengthy and difficult negotiation process, as noted in the embedded articles, both parties wanted safety and security.  It appears that it was not in the interest of the government to have to deal with strikes where the public may be put at risk.  It appears that it was not in the interest of the union to put themselves at continued risk if reasonable wage and security increases were not achievable through the traditional process of negotiation.

This may be a case where the common interests of both parties outweighed the positional, combative approach, which may not have led to a successful conclusion for anyone.  Both parties, in this case, had to compromise future bargaining power in order to ensure they would get what they most valued.

Both parties wanted and were able to achieve, by recognizing common interests, a successful conclusion that appears to serve their best interests now and into the foreseeable future.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Identify three common interests shared by the union and the employer (the government) as they are presented in the embedded articles.
  2. What is the main message to the union members in the OPSEU announcement?
  3. Do you agree that giving up the right to strike was the right thing to do in this case? Why or why not?
  4. What benefits are in place for the employer (the government) as a result of this agreement?

 

Words, words, words….

by

 

Dictionary page - definition of language
Source: Benoit Daoust/Shutterstock

Picture a common scene taking place in a unionized workplace in Canada.  In this scene, we see the organization’s HR Practitioner trying to figure out what, exactly, certain phrases within a Collective Agreement mean.  When the HR Practitioner asks the union representative for clarification of the item, she receives one perspective.  When she asks a supervisor for clarification on the same item, she receives a completely different response.

Then, we see the HR Practitioner with a bit of a headache trying to make sense of it all as the following questions appear in front of her:

  • How can one simple sentence mean two totally different things?
  • Why don’t Collective Agreements use clear and unequivocal language that makes sense to everyone who is bound by its meaning?
  • Who writes these agreements anyway?

This is the good, the bad, and the ugly reality of Collective Agreement language and administration.  Living with the management of a Collective Agreement means that the language can and will be interpreted in two (or more) completely different ways, depending on the situational point of view.

We see this in a recent decision by a Federal tribunal.  In this case, the tribunal upheld a grievance for an employee in one fact-based situation but dismissed a similar grievance for a second employee in a different fact-based situation.  Both employees had filed grievances regarding the same language provisions within their respective Collective Agreement.  Both employees were penalized for coming in late to work due to circumstances, allegedly, outside of their control.

Click here to Read the Article.

A few things come to mind as a result of this case.

First, from the Tribunal’s perspective, the way language was interpreted and applied brought the element of reasonableness into consideration, for both the employer and the employee in each circumstance.

Second, the ability of the employee to control their individual environments and make their own decisions was also a significant consideration in each case.

Most importantly, we must consider the fact that the language in most Collective Agreements is written through a process of negotiation, where every word comes at a price.  The words themselves may be used as a bargaining chip to achieve something else during the collective bargaining process.  All too often, the language that gets written into a Collective Agreement is produced in the middle of the night by union and employer representatives who are both exhausted and focused on reaching a settlement.  Wordsmithing to get certain phrases just right is not something that the parties want to do when the deal is close to being done.

As a result, the implementation  and management of the Collective Agreement takes on interesting twists as it gets brought to life by all of the parties involved.

When the curtain falls on this workplace drama, we see the HR practitioner taking the time to consider multiple elements as she proceeds with the task of interpreting the Collective Agreement, in a fair and reasonable manner.

End scene.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Which employee grievance do you agree with the most? Why?
  2. As an HR practitioner, what will you do to ensure a consistent approach to the application of language in a Collective Agreement that is fair to everyone?
  3. How would you re-write the Collective Agreement language used in the article so that it would have less chance for misinterpretation from an employer perspective?

Legislative Change

by
Balance made of people
Source: Arthimedes/Shutterstock

We are lucky, as Canadians, that we live in a society that tries to provide emergency and crisis support when we need it.  We are also very lucky that these services are provided by skilled and qualified professionals who take on the role of First-Responder when emergencies and crises happen.  First-Responders are usually fire fighters, paramedics, and police officers, among others, who take care of us when we need them the most.  On the other hand, who is taking care of First-Responders when the level of crises become insurmountable for those who provide emergency services to us?

There has been a visible and pro-active push through social media and general media campaigns to promote and discuss the impact of on-going crisis response as experienced by First-Responders in the form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  While the level of awareness about the impact of PTSD on First-Responders is increasing, so too has the need to have an increase in the formal recognition of PTSD as a ‘legitimate’ work-related illness in Ontario.  To date, First- Responders impacted by PTSD have not been able to access intervention and support through traditional worker’s compensation and benefits due to the stigma associated with PTSD as a mental illness and the lack of recognition that their PTSD stems directly from the workplace.

The issue of PTSD may affect thousands of workers from different unions.  This has provided an opportunity for several unions to come together and push for much needed legislative change in the province of Ontario.

Click Here to Read the Article

The power and positive impact of the collective voice is clear.  On April 6, 2016, “Bill 163 Supporting Ontario’s First Responders Act (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder) 2016,” received Royal Assent.

Click Here to Read the Bill 

Though the path to make legislative changes may be difficult, it is so important to ensure that successful change is possible and that the end-result truly provides a benefit to everyone.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Why does PTSD need to be recognized as a work-related illness through Bill 163?
  2. Outline the steps that are required for an issue to move through a legislative process and to become law.
  3. What types of programs can an employer put into place to provide resources and support for workers who may be impacted by PTSD?

Tactics and Timing

by

Playing chess is a game of timing, strategy, tactics, maneuvering, and movement. So too, is the process of negotiating a renewal to a Collective Agreement.

Chess pieces
Source: bikeriderlondon/Shutterstock

In the public sector, the ability to withhold services is a very powerful game piece that unions use in order to leverage their position at the bargaining table.  Typically, when contract discussions break down the parties are in either a full strike position (Union side) or a lock-out position (Employer side). The complete withdrawal of services in the public sector, through either a strike or a lock-out, can go a long way to force both parties to come to an agreement. However, it can also cause irreparable harm to the reputation and support that is very much needed by both parties from the taxpaying public.  When public sector unions go on strike, the most immediate impact is on the public that the sector serves. The risk of losing public support, as a result of premature strike action, is great.  As such, timing throughout the collective bargaining process for public sector unions  and employers is critical.  Both parties need to know when the right move needs to be made in order to continue the game to a successful conclusion.

As an observer, it is interesting to watch the current negotiations process taking place in the municipality of Toronto. CUPE Local 79 and the City of Toronto have continued to bargain beyond the strike/lockout deadline with updates provided through the media on the progress of these talks.

Click Here to Read the Article

One of the pieces that the union has played in this particular bargaining process is a ‘work-to-rule’ campaign.  This is a tactical move used to build pressure on the employer and, at the same time, one that should sustain support from the public.  Services are still being provided so that families served by daycare workers, for example, are not left to fend for themselves – at this point in time.

Whether or not this type of pressure is enough to push the employer to make a successful counter move remains to be seen.

Only time will tell how this particular game plays out.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Identify three key public constituents that might be impacted negatively by municipal workers going on strike.
  2. What are the benefits to the Union’s decision to implement a work-to-rule strategy rather than a full strike?
  3. What tactics could the Employer use to counter the impact of a work-to-rule campaign?