Evidence of meeting #44 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was workers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Mr. Forder, I want to go back to proposed subsection 94(2.4). I want to get clarification, because you've ducked it each time it has been asked of you.
I want to ask you straight out if proposed subsection (2.4) means that managers will not be able to conduct revenue generation duties with their own companies in the case of a strike or lockout under this legislation.
Director, Government Relations, Canadian Auto Workers Union
I would hope not. What you have to understand is that you want to protect the property—
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Would you hope not under this legislation, yes or no?
December 5th, 2006 / 1:40 p.m.
Director, Government Relations, Canadian Auto Workers Union
It's not a yes or no. It's not that simple, with all due respect. The reality is—
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Proposed subsection (2.4) is pretty short. I don't want you to waste time.
Director, Government Relations, Canadian Auto Workers Union
I'm trying to answer your question, with respect.
You have employers who can maintain the apparatus if they have products that are perishable goods, for example. They can deal with that under this legislation. If the operation can't function with replacement workers, that's fine with us. We'll be able to get a settlement earlier. That's something all members should be interested in pursuing. That's the whole purpose of the legislation.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Under this legislation, then, they wouldn't be able to undertake revenue generation.
Director, Government Relations, Canadian Auto Workers Union
On revenue generation, the act seems pretty clear. They wouldn't be able to perform the production that replaces a worker.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Fair enough.
I just wanted to make a couple of comments as we've gone through this. Ms. Davies talked about negotiation, unions, and good negotiators. I would like to make it clear that under this legislation unions would no longer need to be good negotiators. They wouldn't have to be good negotiators because they would have every bit of leverage under this legislation.
I was a manager before I worked here. I managed between eight and twelve people in a non-unionized situation. When one person left my department, it was very difficult for me. If all eight to twelve people left my department at one time, even if I could have found replacements for them, there was no possible way I could have operated. There was no possible way I could have done the things I would have had to do. It would have hurt the organization I worked for greatly if that had happened, and it would have put pressure on me to negotiate.
Likewise, for employees, there's obviously pressure on them to make money for their families. But they do have an alternative. They can try to find other work in that situation. What you do in this situation is take away any alternative for an organization and put all of the leverage in the union's hands.
I have sympathy for employees who work hard and who wind up in strike or lockout situations. But I think this is a fundamental question of fairness, as I brought up before. What this does is it takes away any semblance of fairness in union negotiations, and that's absolutely wrong.
Do you want to comment on that? I'd like to hear from Mr. Whyte if he wants to respond.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
I have a comment.
Something is not being discussed here, and this is why we were caught off guard. We're working with all governments and all parties to deal with one of the biggest issues facing us today. It's a shortage of labour. We're working together because there's a shortage of labour. It's our fastest-growing problem here. There are lots of options elsewhere if you lose your good employees. There should be no reason for this to happen. We're spending more time dealing with other things than that, and I just find it difficult.
Vice-President, Communications Sector, Canadian Union of Public Employees
Yes. I think the issue which has just been raised is extremely interesting.
Over the next few years, many companies will be facing a manpower shortage. That is one of the challenges ahead, and we are well aware of it. On that score, I can tell you that our company is already beginning to feel it. Given the kind of environment these disputes engender, how do you expect us to hold on to people nearing retirement's age longer?
Working conditions are a key factor in a company's productivity, but the working environment is just as important. Savage disputes like these will not bring people to stay with a company longer. But the problem is that we will have manpower shortages in the future, and that is something we have to take into account during the process of reflection.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I'd like to thank the witnesses for appearing before us today.
We'll continue our study on Thursday.
With that, the meeting is adjourned.
