Unions in Canada are in an expansionary mode

Near the beginning of my 26 years writing for the Post, I told readers that, in my next column, I would explain how to legally decertify unions. The mere suggestion led to a series of threatened lawsuits from organized labour, none of which came to fruition.

Since those days, private sector unions have been battered and are less pugilistic, more consigned to their lot than in those headier days.

But from an employee standpoint, is unionization a good idea? Here’s a side-by-side comparison of union and non-union private sector employment

1. No ability to sue for wrongful or constructive dismissal

When I write columns about employees obtaining anywhere from three to 30 months’ pay when they are fired, I am speaking only to the non-union sector. Unionized employees are only entitled to the minimums in the Employment Standard Acts — which, in many provinces, is no more than eight weeks, however long they have been employed.

The only exception is for those unions that have negotiated severance provisions into their collective agreements. Most do not, but for those that do, the negotiated severance pales in comparison to what their members would have received were they not in a union.

2. A layoff is a layoff and does not come with any legal rights

This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. If a non-union employee is laid off, it is a constructive dismissal and the employee can sue for those three to 30 months of full compensation, just as if they had been fired — except for the rare cases where they agreed in writing that the employer could lay them off.

Unionized workers, in contrast, can always be laid off without pay for lack of work, without any recourse — their only protection being the order in which they are laid off, usually by seniority, as set out in their collective agreements. Most employees would prefer to receive wrongful dismissal damages than be laid off without pay.

3. The right to strike

If a non-union employee walks off a job in protest over, say, their wage rate, and starts picketing their employer, they can be fired for abandonment or misconduct (or both) without recourse.

Unionized employees, on the other hand, can walk off the job in an attempt to pressure their employer to pay them more. However, each week off represents two per cent of lost compensation, which employees almost never make up for in a strike.

For example, a five-week strike will lead to a 10 per cent loss in compensation. To make up for that, the employer would have to agree to a 10 per cent wage increase, on top of the increase it was already offering before the strike. That simply never happens.

4. Job security

This is the biggest myth of the lot.

Unions promise job security and look for companies that are being taken over or are having obvious financial problems because the employees often feel imperiled and less confident in their future. You need only look at the list of Canadian unionized industrialized giants that no longer exist to realize that unionization does not lead to job security.

Job security results from the employer’s ability to thrive in the marketplace, and therefore retain its workforce and hire even more, thereby also providing promotional opportunities.

The only relationship between unionization and job security is inverse. When a company’s employees go on strike and its customers seek out alternate providers, smart alternate providers insist upon long-term contracts, rather than ramp up production only to supply the new customer for the potentially short duration of the strike.

The result? When the strike is over, the company will not only have lost revenue but also some of its customer base and may be unable to survive. It is certainly less likely to survive than before, or may only be able to continue with a reduced level of production and employee count. Hence, less job security.

As well, the inefficiencies built into most collective agreements and the cost of administering them leads to reduced competitiveness, further weakening job security.

5. Wages

Unionized workers on average earn more than non-union ones, but they are generally found in higher-paying industries. Comparing union and non-union workers performing the same jobs in the same industries becomes less clear. But unionized workers have to pay a portion of their wages to union dues and risk losing considerable money in a strike, so they could be far worse off than their non-union comparators.

In my experience, although these are the unions’ calling cards, most employees do not sign union cards for wages or job security. They do it because they are treated disrespectfully and want a champion to protect them from a nasty boss. Poor first-line supervision and uncaring management is the danger line of labour relations, and these are what employers should focus on if they wish to remain union free.