May 16, 2013 - Vol 2, No. 36

Oppose "Right to Be Slave Labour Bills"! Uphold the Dignity of Labour!

Conservatives Table New Bills Which Undermine Workers' Rights

Oppose "Right to Be Slave Labour Bills"! Uphold the Dignity of Labour!
• Conservatives Table New Bills Which Undermine Workers' Rights - Mira Katz
• Oppose Preparations for Electoral Coup - Enver Villamizar

Support Liquor Board Workers' Just Demands!
• Workers Step Up Actions to Affirm Their Rights - Christine Nugent

What the Workers Have to Say
• Toronto Liquor Board Worker
• Union Activist

Oppose "Right to Be Slave Labour Bills"! Uphold the Dignity of Labour!

Conservatives Table New Bills Which Undermine Workers' Rights

- Mira Katz -

On May Day 2013, Progressive Conservative (PC) Labour Critic Randy Hillier introduced Bills 62, 63 and 64 which, if passed, would fundamentally change the Labour Relations Act, 1995 affecting workers' rights to collectively organize through trade unions. The bills would give the state much more power over the ability of trade unions to represent workers and to participate in political affairs; over the financial affairs of unions and their general functioning; and as well as give the state direct executive control over the functioning of the Labour Relations Board.

Bill 63

Bill 63 is entitled: An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 with respect to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and other matters, 2013. It would completely eliminate the stated purposes of the Labour Relations Act.

The current purposes of the Act are:

"1. To facilitate collective bargaining between employers and trade unions that are the freely-designated representatives of the employees.

2. To recognize the importance of workplace parties adapting to change.

3. To promote flexibility, productivity and employee involvement in the workplace.

4. To encourage communication between employers and employees in the workplace.

5. To recognize the importance of economic growth as the foundation for mutually beneficial relations amongst employers, employees and trade unions.

6. To encourage co-operative participation of employers and trade unions in resolving workplace issues.

7. To promote the expeditious resolution of workplace disputes. 1995, c. 1, Sched. A, s. 2."

By removing the purposes of the Act, the bill would in effect broaden the powers of the executive (i.e., the premier and cabinet) as its actions could not be challenged on the basis of violating the Act's purposes. By removing the purposes, the bill would also remove the requirement of the Labour Board to facilitate collective bargaining thus eliminating the role of the OLRB as a mechanism for dispute resolution that is nominally independent from government. Instead it could be used as an explicit mechanism of pure government dictate.

Bill 63 adds the following provision to the list of powers of the Lieutenant-Governor to make regulations concerning the Labour Board: "(j.1) governing the Board's practice and procedure and the exercise of its powers and prescribing forms that are required to be used in proceedings before the Board;"

Although workers have their own experience with the Labour Board and how it is used by governments to criminalize their resistance, the bill tabled by the PCs would place the executive of the government in control of the Labour Board by allowing the Lieutenant Governor in Council to set the Board's rules, instead of the Board itself. An equilibrium in labour relations established by years of precedent would be destroyed.

The summary of the bill states clearly that: "The practice and procedure of the Ontario Labour Relations Board is no longer determined by rules made by the Board but is determined by regulations made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under the Act."

This shows the PCs want to usurp the power of the OLRB and use it as a direct instrument of dictate over private and public sector workers. If passed, the bill would permit an employer to sabotage negotiations knowing that the OLRB, under executive control, would then be permitted to impose a contract and criminalize workers' opposition to it.

The bill also states: "At present, a party affected by a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board has no right of appeal. The Bill provides a right of appeal to the Divisional Court in accordance with the rules of court. It also makes members of the Board and other officers compellable witnesses in an appeal or on a judicial review of the Board's proceedings and makes the Minister of Labour and other Ministry officials compellable witnesses before a court or tribunal." This section appears to give more powers to the parties to bring a decision of the Labour Relations Board to court. However, with the purposes of the Labour Relations Act eliminated, the Minister could easily declare their arbitrary actions to be within his or her prerogative powers if they were challenged by workers' unions.

Bill 64

Bill 64, is entitled: An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to protect the rights of employees in collective bargaining and the financial interests of members of trade unions, 2013. Most notable in the explanatory note is that "an employee in a bargaining unit where there is a collective agreement between the employer and a trade union is not required to be a member of the union." This is the PCs "right-to-be-a-slave" bill that would make membership in a bargaining unit of a certified union optional and put an end to the Rand Formula, whereby union dues must be paid by all employees whose jobs are covered by a collective agreement even if they are not required to become members of the union as a condition of employment. Going further, Bill 64 would have a collective agreement apply only to employees who choose to be members of the union. The explanatory note bluntly states, "An employee who is not a member of the trade union is not affected by the collective agreement." In this way, the PCs are going after the very notion of collective bargaining as an employer would have the ability to divide workers doing the same job by offering different wages and working conditions to those who remain out of, or presumably can be enticed to leave, the union from those who are union members covered by the collective agreement. Of course the employer can also persecute, harass, and discriminate against workers who are members of the union for their decision to be a member of a collective defence organization.

Going further still in limiting the power of a union and empowering the state and the employer, the bill also sets out to prevent unions from using their resources for participating in political affairs. Bill 64 "limits regular union dues of a member of a trade union to dues that relate to collective bargaining and no other purpose, unless the member specifically authorizes the union to include amounts for such other purpose." The legislation specifically attempts to prevent unions from participating in politics by amending the definition of regular union dues. The amendment states:

"regular union dues" means that part of the dues uniformly and regularly paid by a member of a trade union in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of the trade union that relates to,

(a) bargaining by the trade union for a collective agreement,

(b) the payment of any pension, superannuation, sickness insurance or other benefit available only to members of the trade union,

(c) the exercise by the trade union of any power or duty under this Act, or

(d) any other matter prescribed by the regulations made under this Act, but not any amount of the dues that relates to any other purpose, such as donations to political parties, unless the employee has specifically authorized the trade union in writing to include that amount in the part of the dues described in this definition." (OPF emphasis)

In line with the Harper Government's private members' Bill C-377, Bill 64 would also require unions to "file a yearly statement with the Minister setting out the dues that are payable to it under the agreement and particulars of its expenses incurred during the year, with a breakdown given of expenses of $5,000 or more." This would also allow the Minister to police what amount of union revenue could be collected as "regular union dues."r

Bill 62

The third piece of legislation is Bill 62: An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to increase the rights of members of trade unions with respect to the certification of trade unions, 2013. The bill would change the Labour Relations Act to require a vote in all union certifications, of employees who have signed union cards indicating their desire to join a union. Currently, there is a representation vote ordered if at least 40 per cent of workers have signed cards. For construction workers, there is an exception. A construction union can be certified without a vote if more than 55 per cent of the workers have signed cards. The legislation would eliminate this exception for construction workers. In addition, if an employer is found to have interfered in the union drive or vote, the Labour Relations Board Chairperson can give automatic certification to the union. Bill 62 would eliminate this deterrent power of the Labour Relations Board that acts to prevent employers from interfering with a vote and persecuting employees for joining the union.

Oppose Preparations for Electoral Coup

- Enver Villamizar -

Given the attempts of the Liberals to present themselves as more "balanced" and "fair" in labour relations following the defeat of Bill 115, it is unlikely the Progressive Conservatives' (PCs) Bills 62, 63 and 64 will be passed in the minority Legislature. However, the working class must consider why these bills have been tabled. The Hudak PCs originally outlined plans to introduce this legislation last year in a white paper on labour relations entitled Paths to Prosperity: Flexible Labour Markets, with the argument that these would make Ontario more competitive and open to more investments. Hudak knows that the working class and Ontarians in general do not support such legislation, as evidenced by the upsurge of opposition to the Liberals' Bill 115, supported by the PCs, that was eventually repealed. So then what are Hudak and the interests the PCs represent up to?

At the federal level in the case of the Harper Conservatives, all manner of anti-social, anti-worker, anti-immigrant, pro-U.S. annexationist measures were tabled as bills while the Conservatives were in a minority government. Most did not get passed. However, once the Conservatives achieved their majority through an electoral coup in which they captured a majority with only 24 per cent of eligible voters voting for them, all the bills were brought forward again, in some cases with an even more reactionary content than when originally presented. They were then rammed through as part of omnibus legislation and budget bills. The ruling class is making great efforts to render the working people powerless in the electoral sphere. They want workers to remain passive and/or divided, paving the way for a Conservative majority or a minority through an electoral coup using micro-targeting techniques. They will then impose these reactionary anti-worker arrangements and claim they have a mandate from the people.

The content of their proposed legislation makes it clear that the Hudak Conservatives are directly challenging the ability of workers to defend and empower themselves through their unions and participate in political affairs. Much of what is in the bills, regarding the Labour Relations Act especially, would make permanent what was tested by the Liberals and Conservatives with Bill 115. In Bill 115, they tried to usurp the power of the Ontario Labour Relations Board by invoking a "period of restraint" to justify it. The PCs' Bill 64 would usurp the Board's powers permanently by putting it under the direct regulatory control of the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

The situation reveals that the fight against anti-worker legislation like Bill 115 has succeeded in mobilizing united opposition to the anti-worker neo-liberal agenda but that more attempts are in the making to disempower the working people. The working people must remain vigilant and step up their involvement in political affairs to defend their interests and turn the situation around in their favour.

Support Liquor Board Workers' Just Demands!

Workers Step Up Actions to Affirm Their Rights

- Christine Nugent -

LCBO workers raise their just demands, Toronto, April 19, 2013.

On May 17 at midnight, it is possible Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) workers across the province will go on strike or be locked out by the LCBO. These workers are taking a stand against the kind of part-time casual work arrangements being broadly implemented in the retail sector and deserve everyone's support. LCBO workers are saying NO! to management imposing the part-time casual work arrangements that have created insecurities in their livelihoods and chaos in their lives.

LCBO workers are also saying NO! to the government dictating austerity contracts on public sector workers. They are demanding a say on their wages and working conditions. LCBO management is attempting to impose the Wynne government's austerity agenda on its workers. The workers are demanding changes and the employer is refusing to negotiate.

LCBO workers have voted 95 per cent in favour of a province-wide strike action. There are 7,000 workers in LCBO stores, warehouses and offices. Of these, 4,200 are part-time. The workers are represented by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU).[1]

LCBO workers and OPSEU have launched three new initiatives to back up their demands: first, activists are setting up strike headquarters in 33 communities across the province; second, on May 10, OPSEU filed a legal claim against the LCBO and the Ontario government for wage discrimination against female employees at the LCBO; and third, OPSEU launched a media campaign to inform the public about the issues and to organize support for their stand against precarious work.

Strike Headquarters Opened

Toronto; Oshawa

Workers are preparing for a strike due to the refusal of the employer to negotiate and resolve the important demands workers are putting forward on the issue of part-time work. On May 13, at the location of the strike trailer across from the LCBO headquarters in Toronto, an OPSEU spokesperson said, "What kind of an Ontario do we want? When it comes to jobs, do we want an Ontario where people are forever scrambling to make a living out of two or three part-time, temporary jobs with no benefits, no job security and no way to save for retirement or do we want an Ontario with good permanent jobs with benefits that allow us to live decently, give our children what they need, and retire with dignity?"

The list of the communities with strike headquarters, where people can show support for the workers in the event of a strike, can be found here.

Sudbury; Sault Ste. Marie

LCBO and Wynne Government Face Human Rights Complaint

On May 10, OPSEU filed a complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal over persistent wage discrimination against female workers. OPSEU's complaint stated: "The LCBO has deliberately created a core workforce of mainly women, who commonly work 25 to 40 hours per week throughout the year, who are classified by the crown corporation as 'casuals.' Thousands of these workers are paid less, restricted benefits and promotions."

Two-thirds of LCBO employees are casual workers with no guaranteed hours, few benefits and an average income that is less than $26,000 a year. Seventy per cent of the casual workers are women. They are demanding 23 to 38 per cent wage catch-up as they do identical work to full-time workers. In the past five years, only 15 per cent of new jobs at the LCBO were full-time.

An LCBO spokesperson said that management is just doing the same thing as other retailers. Workers reject this and demand that the government solve the problem of precarious work in retail and other sectors, starting with its own retail stores!

The rise of part-time, temporary and unstable work is the focus of the radio ads launched this week by OPSEU under the banner, "We don't have to be a part-time province!" The goal of the ad campaign is to inform the public that the LCBO workers' fight is everyone's fight -- a fight for the right of workers to negotiate working conditions and wages commiserate with the work they do and the right of all workers to secure livelihoods at Canadian standard wages.

To listen to the radio ads, click here.

Note

1. See Ontario Political Forum, April 15, 2013 - No.32.

(With files from OPSEU, Canadian Press. Photos: OPSEU)

What the Workers Have to Say

Toronto Liquor Board Worker

The following is an interview with Willy Marz, Toronto worker with the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO).

Ontario Political Forum: The workers have voted 95 per cent for a strike and have set a strike date of May 17.What are the latest developments in negotiations?

Willy Marz: At the moment negotiations continue although management is not budging in their position of a four-year wage freeze and other clawbacks from our current contract.

OPF: The LCBO is very profitable and the workers state that it is their work that has generated these profits. For the year 2011-2012, the LCBO paid $1.63 billion dividend to the government last year. The workers are saying that they have a claim on this wealth. What are the main demands of the workers?

WM: The main demand is for decent jobs. The LCBO is trying to remove workers' rights and ability to provide the service needed. It's an attempt to make the workforce mainly one of part-timers who are more vulnerable.

The LCBO wants a revised pay grid for new employees, a wage freeze for wage progression and the elimination of 270 assistant management positions at its larger stores. It's gutting the service and social responsibility that can be provided. On top of this the LCBO has increased part-time work by 981 positions -- a number that spikes during the Christmas-New Year's holiday and summer months -- but has added only 156 permanent, full-time jobs, since 2008.

After two decades of increasing profits the workers have endured pay freezes and changes to their working environment that are intolerable. Per-employee profit at the LCBO amounts to more than $200,000 a year and yet the corporation continues to squeeze its workers.

OPF: What is the relationship between the LCBO and the Government of Ontario?

WM: The relationship is supposed to be an arm's length one. Historically speaking it can and does strike deals with the workers that are not subject to conditions in the rest of the Ontario Public Service.

OPF: Where do the workers stand on the question of the agency stores?

WM: Agency stores don't provide the same level of service and selection as a real LCBO store. They increase the risk of sales to kids and people who are intoxicated. And they cost the provincial government millions in lost revenue. This is privatization through the back door. The political opposition to privatization is too great so this is an alternative method of attack on the public ownership of liquor sales.

OPF: The government in the past has set out to sell some of the LCBO assets to pay down the debt such as the waterfront land in Toronto which houses the headquarters and warehouse.

WM: Yes, a study done previously under the Conservatives by people associated with SNC Lavalin and Loblaws had recommended selling the warehousing and distribution sections of the corporation. The main buyers for this part of the corporation would have been Loblaws and SNC Lavalin so the study was not really surprising. This idea was scrapped when the Liberals got in power as it would have crippled the profit-making ability of the corporation.

OPF: What do you want to say in conclusion?

WM: The ability of the workers to stand up to this assault is important for the health and safety of the province. Liquor sales affect not only the provincial coffers but also the health of the province. Increasing sales while taking away the ability of the workers to ensure social responsibility of those sales is dangerous. Workers will be increasingly vulnerable if they are reduced to part-timers.

Union Activist

The following is an interview with a union activist of the Liquor Board Employees Division (LBED) of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU.)

Ontario Political Forum: What is the history of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO)?

LBED Activist: The history of prohibition in Ontario can be explained this way. When the sale of beverage alcohol became legal, the temperance unions were very influential in making sure that there were strict controls in place for the selling and consuming of beverage alcohol in Ontario, thus the Liquor Control Board came into being. The Alcohol and Gaming Commission (AGCO) is the actual overseer of the sale of alcohol in Ontario. The LCBO does not make the rules. It just carries out the sales and import end of things.

OPF: The Hudak Conservatives have in the past pushed for the privatization of the LCBO and the sale of spirits, wine and beer in corner stores along with the selling off of its assets. Some of these ideas were put forward by the Drummond Commission. Former Finance Minister Dwight Duncan talked about selling the downtown office. Do you have any comments on this?

LBED Activist: The sell-off of the LCBO Lakeshore is still on the books although on the back burner for the moment. The liquor store will stay -- the current location behind head office facing the water is one of the most lucrative locations in the province. Moving the warehouse and head office makes sense actually if the government can sell that land to developers and pocket a tidy profit. Also, the land directly to the east, a massive chunk of head office, also belongs to the LCBO.

OPF: The proposed 2013 Ontario budget calls "for store expansion, consistent with the recommendation to enhance LCBO profits while continuing to promote socially responsible consumption." Can you explain what the situation is with agency stores and privatization?

LBED Activist: Agency stores were born in the '60s as a legitimate means of providing the legal sale of beverage alcohol in communities that were so remote that it did not make any business sense to establish a store there. Many of those original stores still exist today. Most of them are at least 100 kms away from a community that has an LCBO of any size.

But today's agency stores are nothing more than back door privatization. Many of them are located in communities that are mere minutes away from large communities and multiple stores. These agency stores are the biggest customers of LCBO stores in their neighbouring communities (traditionally but not always as some of them have direct delivery from LCBO warehouses or depots). Let's be clear and understand this.

In my store, let's pretend that a 26 oz. bottle of vodka is $20. (It isn't anymore!). Eighty-one per cent of that is various forms of tax. That means that $16.20 of the selling price is pure taxes.

Out of the remaining $3.80 comes the cost of production and delivery, wages for workers, costs for stores and other retail infrastructure and the dribble left over is actual profit.

On April 1 of every calendar year (March 30 is the end of the fiscal year for the LCBO), the LCBO transfers in excess of $1 billion to the province of Ontario. This is profit. This has nothing at all to do with taxes. This money is the profit after all the bills are paid, after all the wages are paid and after all the costs are addressed. The leftover profit from the business goes straight to the government of Ontario on behalf of the people of Ontario.

In the agency store scenario, the profit stays with the agency owner. The government gets only the tax portion (there are a multitude of taxes involved) and not the profit. This profit goes into private pockets and not back to the people of Ontario.

Visit our anti-privatization page to read, watch and learn the details about agency stores. [Click here.]

OPF: Why is the LCBO management calling for assistant managers to be taken out of the union?

LBED Activist: Assistant managers are in the union for sure. They get paid more. They have quasi-managerial duties but of course, do not discipline or hire or fire, that sort of stuff, but they can be decision makers in other areas. They are not management but are paid more to run the business, particularly in the absence of the manager but also to enhance and relieve the manager of all responsibility. I think they want to cut costs mostly. It also is part of their agenda to do away with seniority and introduce a merit system. As it stands, many compete for assistant manager jobs with a view to a possible manager's job one day. They gain experience and credibility and have an opportunity to learn and to shine -- all very legitimate -- plus, they earn more money and it is appealing from a prestige point of view to be called the assistant manager.

But remember that not all managers are really bonafide managers. Managers in small towns are in the union, although many of them do not act like it. Smaller stores (called c and d stores depending on their sales) are run by managers covered by the collective agreement. The a and b store managers are the real McCoy.

PREVIOUS ISSUES | HOME

Read Ontario Political Forum
Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  ontario@cpcml.ca