Intro with thesis: Labour unions dues in Canada are governed according to the “Rand Formula.” The Rand Formula was a legal principle developed by Justice Ivan Rand to help settle the famous Ford Windsor strike that occurred in 1945. The formula was very simple, workers would not be required to join a union, but all workers, unionized or not, must pay union dues. The Rand Formula has withstood multiple charter challenges, but that does not mean it is unopposed. As part of their 2014 election campaign, the Progressive Conservatives of Ontario released a white paper titled “Flexible Labour;” one of the key proposals of the white paper would be allowing employees to choose whether to join a union and whether to pay union dues. Had the Progressive …show more content…
I will argue that right-to-work laws have an overall negative impact on the wages of workers in the states where they are applied. Some starting points I plan to raise • Workers employed in manufacturing in states that have right-to-work laws suffer about $2,815 in terms of wage penalties; which translates to about $70 a year in wage losses for each worker. On average, manufacturing wages are nearly nine percent lower in right-to-work states when compared to states without right-to-work laws. • There is a difficulty in measuring wages accurately because of the huge amount of variables (race, sex, cost of living). But, when all the variables are accounted for, right-to-work laws cause a 3.2% decrease in wages. The decrease is larger for female workers and Hispanic workers (4.4% decrease) and even larger for African-American workers (4.8% decrease). • Unionized workers have substantially higher wages than non-union workers. So, right-to-work laws combined with naturally declining union membership would lower the wage gap between union and non-union workers, which could account for why right-to-work states have lower wages than non-right-to-work
How were revolutionary industrial unionists in Winnipeg influenced to strike in 1919? All Canadians have heard of the Winnipeg General Strike, and many have studied its influences. Coming immediately after the First World War, yet coming before the Great Depression hit, many wonder why Winnipeg workers took up arms when they did? In truth, the strikers were primarily industrial unionists who wanted a revolution. The strikers were aiming for a major difference in the government. Now, to the non-Canadian, Canada has always seemed perfectly calm and neutral. Many would go as far as wondering how Canada could ever have any problems. Therefore, hardly anybody knows of the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike, let alone what caused the strike. Simply put, revolutionary industrial unionists within Canada were influenced to strike by Canada’s involvement in the First World War, the quick and incredible success of Russia’s revolution in 1917, and inflation within the country.
Tentative Thesis: I plan to argue that the transition from the Keynesian based unemployment insurance to the neoliberal employment insurance has had a negative impact on workers in Canada.
Labor’s rights, this issue have been bothering many worker since the 19th century and can still be a problem today. As John L. Lewis has said in his speech “I repeat that labor seeks peace and guarantees its own loyalty, but the voice of labor, insistent upon its rights, should not be annoying to the ears of justice or offensive to the conscience of the American people” (John L. Lewis), which under his words meant that labor is something that can be done right and peacefully but it needs rules and benefits that come with those rules which labor asks for and when labor asks for those rules and benefits it shouldn’t be taken like some annoying kid’s demands but more as something that needs to be done and done with a right mind set. Labor today consists of a man or woman going to work, working their hours, and finally getting paid for those hours at the end of the week, at least a minimum of $7.50 an hour (United States Department of Labor), but before it wasn’t like that before many workers would get paid very poorly even thought they would work for a lot of hours and they wouldn’t get benefits from their work or safety when working such as in the mines like the mine workers, but one man stood up for them and his name was John L. Lewis (John Llewellyn Lewis, Encyclopedia).
The conflict over living conditions in Canada has been ongoing. Perhaps Canada’s most forceful movement towards change was the Winnipeg General Strike, during the summer of 1919. The strike was caused by the working class’ desire to rise out of poverty. The government hastily tried to suppress the strike by deporting the strike leaders, using gunfire to disperse crowds, and eventually ‘punishing’ the people by dismissing them from their jobs. The Winnipeg General Strike was ultimately detrimental to the wellbeing of working class Winnipeggers due to the government’s infringement of democratic ideals.
Unions have always been a pain in employers’ sides. From today to the 1910s, workers have tried to unionize for better conditions in their jobs. Today, people try to opt out of being in unions, avoiding the union’s dues but still reaping the rewards. That’s a long way away from what people experienced in the 1910s. During that time period, people were struggling to even be apart of a union.
Unions have an extensive history of standing up for workers. They have advocated rights of steelworkers, coal miners, clothing factory employees, teachers, health care workers, and many others. The labor movement is based on the idea that organized workers as a group have more power than individuals would have on their own. The key purpose of any union is to negotiate contracts, making sure workers are respected and fairly compensated for their work. “In theory” unions are democratic organizations, resulting in varying inner authority. Workers look for security within a job a...
Minimum wage is a topic that has been popping up since the 1980s. From whether we should lower it, or even raise it, but now in the 2000s minimum wage has been the center of attention more than ever. There are two sides to this topic of minimum wage; whether it creates more jobs or does not create jobs. Those who argue that raising minimum wage will create more jobs will have a rebuttal which is that it does not only cause the loss of jobs but that it would make things much worse and vice versa for those arguing raising minimum wage will cause loss of jobs. There will be two authors representing opposite views, Nicholas Johnson supporting minimum wage will not cost jobs with his article “ Evidence Shows Raising Minimum Wage Hasn’t Cost Jobs”
Fletcher says that when unions and politics come together, people especially interpret unions’ missions and their power critically. He does not expand on how he titles the myth, but skims the surface on union consensus regarding politics. The myth is about the belief that “unions should stay out of politics and focus on what’s happening in the workplace” (Fletcher 65).
Gitterman, Daniel P. “Remaking A Bargain: The Political Logic Of The Minimum Wage In The United States.” Poverty And Public Policy 5.1 (2013): 3-36. EconLit. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.
Many opponents of raising the federal minimum wage argue that it would cause jobs to be lost. Studies show, they have a point. Raising the minimum wage
In the late 20th century, the Supreme Court, overtime, became conservative on the issue of organized labor. In the Supreme Court case In re Debs, the court ruled in favor that federal government controlled interstate commerce and was obligated to keep the railroads from road blocks and in that specific case, strikes protests. The fact that a good percentage of the American public and the federal government views organized labor negatively. It was not surprising that organized labor did not do much during the late 20th
They have long argued that requiring employers to pay workers more will force many of them to either cut back on hours, put off hiring, or lay off employees in order to keep their labor costs down. “Raising the minimum wage will kill jobs and stifle economic output,” NFIB Manager of Legislative Affairs Ashley Fingarson said earlier this week, as the organization sent a letter to the Senate urging lawmakers to vote against a bill that would raise the minimum hourly rate from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour. (The Washington Post) Many businesses will be hurt by the increase in wage rate due to lack of expenses of paying employees more, causing businesses to lose money and even go out of
The low income workers who receive public assistance will seem to make more in wages but will lose money from what public assistance they were also collecting causing them to request working less hours to maintain what they would have received from public assistance. A worker with children who is paid $7.25 an hour will have a higher income than if they were paid a higher wage, but because at the higher wage they will lose the public assistance such as food stamps, welfare, and other benefits because of making the higher wages. This is causing people to request to work less hours so they can receive their public assistance benefits. Who seems to gain the most from a living wage requirement is the public employee who is in a union as their involvement with the union is a form of protection in the job market. The living wage laws can and will have negative effects as they can in certain job markets reduce employment opportunities for the low skilled workers or the workers without a higher education. Some employers will be forced to eliminate some job opportunities because they will not be able to produce enough profit to be able to or justify to having to pay the higher wage. The hardest hit will be the mom & pop or non-chain stores as they do not have the backing or income to support
In recent years, states such as Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama have increased their workforce by opening automobile plants. Volkswagen is opening a new plant in Tennessee. The plant has a goal to make 1 billion dollars in sale by 2018 (Kiley, 2008). Volkswagen’s decision to move to Tennessee and not stay in the Rust Belt is proof that something is different in the American economy. The Rust Belt: Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana are what the world thinks when one says the American auto industry. This area has almost singled handedly built the American auto industry. “Despite the ready workforce in those states, foreign automakers have mostly opted to build greenfield plants far away from the organizing bases of the United Auto Workers union” (Kiley, 2008). Some cite cost and the UWA for this movement, but is this all that right to work states have to offer, cheap labor and the right to terminate at will. Volkswagen ...
It forces workers to make decisions about unionization in front of union organizers and exposes workers to intimidation by those organizers. Opponents of Right to Work like to point out that the average wage in Right to Work states is lower than the average wage in non-RTW states. Since employers in right-to-work states are not required to hire union members, the union's ability to improve work conditions beyond legal minimums is weakened when membership is outnumbered by non-members in the firm. As a result, right-to-work states have higher employment related fatalities than pro-union