Evidence of meeting #123 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 44th 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.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses.
Ms. Glode, at the tail end of your presentation you talked about “the benefits of unionization.” You used that exact phrase. Could you talk about union dues and how they help workers realize those benefits?
Director, Public Affairs, Fish, Food and Allied Workers - Unifor
When you're part of an organization and you expect a certain level of service, that's what your dues provide.
We're a unique model, as I said, and the union dues that our fish harvesters provide allow us to offer a number of services. Our members have life, death and disability insurance included in their membership dues. They also get all the servicing that we provide, like helping with EI claims and DFO issues. We handle organizing committees and stuff around the province, we support resource management decisions and we also have a lot of involvement in science and research.
These are just the types of services that dues provide to members and the benefits they bring them.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
What are your thoughts, in light of what you just said, on the so-called right-to-work laws enacted in some U.S. states, whereby individuals are allowed to opt out of paying union dues?
Director, Public Affairs, Fish, Food and Allied Workers - Unifor
In principle, our union believes that dues should be mandatory if you are part of the union, because all people in that industry will inherently benefit from the work done by that union. By allowing people to opt out, you'll inherently be weakening the power of unions and the power of collective action.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I agree with you. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party of Canada's 2023 official policy book states, on page 6, that the "Conservative Party of Canada...supports right to work legislation to allow optional union membership.”
Do you have a view on that?
Director, Public Affairs, Fish, Food and Allied Workers - Unifor
Yes. Our union would certainly disagree with that and not support that policy.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
It was also interesting that just a few days ago, the Alberta Federation of Labour issued a statement saying policies like this could lead to a pay cut of almost $2,300 a year. I'm not asking you to agree with their analysis, because you haven't looked at the numbers, but does it seem to make sense to you that they've arrived at that conclusion?
Director, Public Affairs, Fish, Food and Allied Workers - Unifor
Yes, it would make sense that you would be reducing the level of service you can provide, whether it's negotiating power, research departments or that sort of thing. If you have fewer resources, you provide less service.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Premier Smith in Alberta is moving in this direction as well. This is apparently the policy of her government.
Thank you very much for that.
Mr. Harvey, what is your opinion on this matter?
Economist, Centrale des syndicats du Québec
Thank you for the question.
The problem with making the union contribution voluntary or not is that we run the risk of ending up with free riders, people who, without paying the price, will benefit from both the collective agreements negotiated by the unions and the various protections and improvements to their working conditions. In the long term, if a small minority ends up paying for services that benefit all workers, it will discourage both participation in union action and the creation of unions.
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Poilievre spoke of a “right to work”, but perhaps he was making a play on words.
Economist, Centrale des syndicats du Québec
Yes, there is a right to work. However, just as we can't exempt ourselves from municipal or provincial taxes under the pretext that we don't want to belong to that organization, when we choose, democratically, to unionize and organize collectively to have a group that represents us and negotiates our working conditions, it seems illogical to me to be able to exempt ourselves from financing part of that organization's operations.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Harvey, what are the results of these laws in the United States? What is your opinion in this regard?
Economist, Centrale des syndicats du Québec
I haven't done any specific studies on the subject, but when you look at all the data and make a comparison between states with laws defending the “right to work” and those with more automatic unionization procedures and dues, you find that the former have a much lower unionization rate than states with laws that offer better protection for unions. Unionization is especially low in the private sectors that need it most, i.e., those where competition is strong and wages and working conditions are low. So they are depriving the workers who need protection the most of a collective tool.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I know I have 20 seconds left, Mr. Chair.
I don't doubt the sincerity of colleagues like Mr. Seeback, who began today by talking about his son's experience. I'm sure that's quite true. As I say, he's very serious about that, but there's a bit of a contradiction when it comes to the Conservative Party's policy on unions and what exists in practice. Again, their policy book talks about the so-called right to work, which is detrimental to the rights of workers, as we've just heard.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Okay, your time is up. Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.
Ms. Chabot, you now have the floor for six minutes.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank both witnesses for being here.
These exchanges are not directly aimed at the subject, but they will allow us to recognize that unionization must be promoted because it brings benefits to society and to workers. No government, of any party, should aim to eliminate or diminish it.
Mr. Harvey, you were launched on a topic and I'd like to hear the rest before asking my question.
Economist, Centrale des syndicats du Québec
Thank you, Ms. Chabot.
I was saying that the union advantage, as my colleagues at Statistics Canada have clearly demonstrated, is not to the detriment of workers as a whole. On the contrary, in countries with a high concentration of trade unions, equality has increased across society as a whole. What's more, this increase does not come at the expense of economic growth or productivity.
I want to focus on the impact unions have on increasing efficiency within companies. Among other things, job security and stability contribute not only to workforce training, but also to the adoption of new technologies, as well as greater openness in exchanges between employers and employees, whether in quality circles or in human resources management. Unions also stimulate savings, with unionized companies often offering their employees retirement funds that will enable them to save, and at the same time contribute to the creation of venture and investment capital.
The case of Quebec is quite interesting in this respect. The Fonds de solidarité de la Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec and the Fondaction fund of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux inject tens of billions of dollars into the Quebec economy every year, making it one of Canada’s venture capital leaders.
I'll conclude simply by saying that, according to the data presented, the union advantage is strongest in those areas of the private sector where wages are lowest, jobs require few diplomas and competition is high. If we want to maintain this advantage, we need to strengthen access to unionization for all workers in these environments. This, of course, requires changes to labour laws. Labour laws are a matter for the provinces, but the federal government can set an example in this respect in the Canada Labour Code.
When you want to allow union certification of workers in more difficult sectors, where competition is stronger and the workforce denser, you have to go a little further than the Canadian and North American certification system. I think the example of sectoral unionization that Ms. Glode mentioned is an interesting one, and that we need to encourage the creation of these kinds of sectoral and professional unions. The construction sector and the Union des artistes in Quebec are good examples. Why not a sectoral union for commerce, where salespeople and cashiers could group together by sector rather than by company? Again, it's an example the provinces could follow.
In Quebec, certain sectoral collective agreement decrees allow negotiated agreements to be extended to all sectors, so that all employees in various sectors can benefit from negotiated working conditions. In the past, such a decree applied to the sewing industry in Quebec, but it has unfortunately been abolished.
Finally, multi-employer certification is another solution that enables small companies to band together to take advantage of larger unions and bargaining tables. A good example from Quebec, which can also be found in all the provinces, is that of shelters for victims of domestic violence. These are often small centres, whose employees unfortunately do not enjoy very good working conditions. Organizing them one by one would be complicated. In this case, multi-employer certification is an option. In the private sector, this already exists in some unions, but the model should be extended to facilitate access to unionization.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
My question concerns female-dominated employment. You say that, according to the statistics, non-unionization is mainly seen in small jobs, those requiring fewer qualifications. Are women at a greater disadvantage in these sectors?
Economist, Centrale des syndicats du Québec
The data do show that union advantage and unionization are highest in small private sector businesses with low degree requirements, particularly on the men's side. In sectors with comparable, low-wage, female-dominated jobs, there has never been mass unionization.
So we can presume that, if measures were put in place to encourage unionization in the sectors with more vulnerable jobs—both male and female-dominated jobs—we could see a significant improvement in the working conditions of Canadian women. So it is really important to facilitate access to unionization in the sectors where it will be most beneficial, for both men and women. We can change history and make progress in female-dominated sectors.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Ms. Chabot.
Go ahead, Madame Zarrillo, for six minutes.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses today.
My first question is for Ms. Glode.
Thank you for highlighting why we're doing this study, why unions matter as that offset of the employer and, as we're seeing in an environment of growing corporate greed, how workers' rights are being eroded.
You mentioned the Liberal government's weakening of local workers' rights in favour of corporations and corporate greed, and quite often in favour of international interests rather than interests at home. You also introduced the idea of contract-flipping and successorship. I wonder whether you could expand a bit more on the negative impacts contract-flipping and successorship have on workers, and why employers are so eager to do it.
Director, Public Affairs, Fish, Food and Allied Workers - Unifor
I can speak about a recent example of contract-flipping here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
You might be familiar with the mining company Vale. They undertake a lot of work here in the province, and they hire a lot of skilled trade workers. They recently flipped a contract on about 200 skilled trade workers and retendered the contract to a new company. What that meant was that 200 people, who had unionized jobs and a strong contract, were effectively put on the street and told, “If you want to come back to work for this new company, you can do that, but you'll be taking a 30% pay cut and losing your benefits.”
These are the impacts that contract-flipping has on working people. It's one thing, as I said, that is really eroding that middle-class job and reducing the purchasing power and the economic sustainability of skilled trade workers.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you so much for sharing that.
Mr. Harvey, I ask you also whether you have any experience or an example you can share about how contract-flipping and successorship is affecting your workers.
Economist, Centrale des syndicats du Québec
Since I work for a union that primarily represents public sector employees, I can't give you concrete examples. However, from the early 2000s to 2010, there were a lot of union struggles over subcontracting. We have seen that, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, one of the strategies employers used to reduce their labour costs was subcontracting.
In Quebec, we have fought to reduce an employer's ability to transform unionized jobs into jobs for non-union subcontractors. I think we have made gains in this area. It was impossible to transfer union certification to a subcontractor without maintaining it.
I think it is important that similar reforms be introduced in the various Canadian provinces where there is no such protection.