IDRL215 Assignment 4 - Assign 4 PDF

Preview

Summary

Assign 4...

Description

Assignment 4 Lakeside Packers Case Study 1.

Why was the plant non-union and why did a series of organizing drives fail?

According to Foster’s article published in 2016, in 1976, Lakeside Packers was unionized by the Canadian Food and Allied workers, which later merged with the Retail Clerks international union to become Allied Workers, which later merged with the Retail Clerks international to become the (UFCW) United Food and Commercial Workers (pg.203). In the 1980s there was a shift to reduce labour and transportation cost and the industry relocated livestock closer to the assembly line (pg. 199). Hence, creating a new labour force as well as putting downward pressure on wages eventually led to labour unrest and strikes in the meatpacking industry. As a result of the strikes, “in 1984, as part of a nationwide meatpacking strike, Lakeside hired replacement workers at wages 30% below the union rate, a cut that ranged between $3.00 and $3.80 an hour”, (pg. 203). The move successfully broke the union and only a handful of workers maintained the picket line over the next three years. UFCW abandoned the strike in 1987 and Lakeside was officially Union free. The shift to rural locations resulted in transferring the work from a highly unionized and competitive environment for industrial workers and where the unionization rate would be lower. Together these shifts led to significant downward pressure on wages and working conditions in the industry. The 1980s witnessed a series of strikes and labour friction that threatened urban facilities, as the meatpacking employers demanded deep concessions and ultimately closed olderstyle plants. For this reason, the unions could not withstand employer cost pressures which caused wages and working conditions deteriorated (Foster, 2016, pg.199). In 2001, Lakeside sold to Tyson Food, thereafter they adopted an unwavering anti-union approach, defeating repeated organizing attempts and displaced banners stating “proudly union free” on the plant sign beside the highway (Foster, 2016, pg.204). In defeating unionizing attempts, the company deployed a variety of tactics including reminding workers of the previous union decertification. Lakeside management engaged in unfair labour practices as they told employees that if they join the union, they will lose some benefits and told the employees that the union abandoned them in 1984 and they will abandon them again. They made an effort to ensure that any possible union campaign and drive would fail.

2.

What were workers’ biggest concerns that led to the union drive?

Lakeside initially recruited local workers in rural areas who saw the industrial jobs as an alternative to agri-culture-related work. However, by the mid-1990s, worsening conditions in plants and growing employment options for rural workers, found it increasingly difficult to recruit sufficient labour to staff these large super-plants. As a result, they shifted their recruitment strategy to recently arrived immigrants and refugees. In recent decades, the industry also began relying on temporary migrant workers to meet staffing demands. As the increase of African and Asian immigrants altered the dynamics in the plant, this created division and tension heightened between immigrant workers (Foster, 2016, pg.206). The immigrant workers were given the worst jobs and there were accusations that immigrants were paid less than Canadians for the same work. The immigrants, with reduced employment opportunities compared to local people, stayed longer and were more reliant on the employer and often had nowhere to go, they couldn’t leave (Foster, 2016, pg.206). The immigrant workers had a long list of grievances and concerns that fuelled anger at the employers, including health and safety issues, employer bullying, and inconsistencies around wage rates and hours (Foster, 2016, pg.207). Plus, allegations of racism in the plant since the majority of the supervisor, most of the people in a position of authority, i.e safety committees, quality control, individuals who make sure the product is being processed properly, were all white people (Foster, 2016, pg.207). As a result of these effects very seldom did a person from an ethic community get promoted into a position of power. Thus, they display their solidarity in ways unfamiliar to North American Unionists, and they have an unresponsive awareness regarding unions, but it misinterprets that as a reluctance to stand up for their rights.

3. Why did the employer fight the union so fiercely and what does this tell us about their

approach to labour relations? The Foster (2016) article explains that the pattern of global mobility opened a new avenue for Meatpacking companies’ to recruit immigrants, which transformed the local labour market (pg.200). The industry started to recruit elsewhere since they were experiencing a high level of turnover with the local workers as they found job opportunities elsewhere. The expansion market efficiencies allows meatpacking companies to locate in areas where they can continue to get away with unfair labour practices. Foster (2016) article also explains the immigrant workers were marginalized due to immigrant status, language, and other factors, making them more vulnerable to exploitation (pg.200). Lakeside made every effort to stop the union; they fired workers, they told workers they would have trouble with Immigrant Canada, if they voted for the union. The company repeatedly engages in unfair labour practices with threats and intimidation towards the employees. Specifically, since the de-unionization of the company in 1987, they were able to reduce labour cost, commit unfair labour practices to achieve their goal of staying union free (Foster, 2016, pg.204-205). The employer actively disrupted union organized meetings and with high levels of employee turnover this made it difficult for the union to maintain the required level of support. According to Mcquarrie (2015) the lakeside approach to labour relations mirrors the post industrial revolution work structure where there was insufficient training, the employer controlled the labour process, paid wages deemed appropriate, prolonged exposure to unsafe and horrific working conditions (pg.33-34). The negative impact of these working conditions on workers was the major reason why the unions gained the edge in formation. Primarily, due to the separation between capital and labour caused by the industrialization of the meatpacking plants exploiting workers (pg.35). In addition, lakeside engaged in unfair labour practices, they influence the employee's intention towards the union and a collective agreement if the union returns to the plant. Lakeside acted as workplace bully during the organizing campaign and certification process, but however they made themselves very much unavailable during the certification process. They negatively intervened in every part of the organizing, certification process by “cancelling scheduled negotiating meetings” (Mcquarrie, 2015, pg194).

4. What was different about the 2005 organizing drive? What factors made it successful? After failed campaign attempts, the UFCW local 401 finally realized that they had to learn from their past failures. This invigorates the Union in signing up the immigrant workers as they noticed the shift workplace where they were ignoring 50 percent of the workers at Lakeside

(Foster, 2016 pg.206). In the past, the Union frequently engaged in exclusionary and racist practices, including prohibiting membership to certain ethnic groups, supporting draconian immigrantion policies and encouraging deportation and social exclusion (Foster, 2016, pg.201). Specifically, unions have struggled to organize and represent immigrant workers. Immigrants and non-white workers have lower unionization rates than other Canadians, to other views such as trust. Traditional organizing strategies are less effective with these groups of workers, in part due to their occupational location. Also, these workers may be more distrustful of union representation and question the value of union membership. The Unions have been slow to address equity issues both within the workplace and the union itself. The Union channelled the issue of racism that posed scepticism and challenges before. Foster (2016) articles states that the union measured approach to organizing immigrant workers was crucial in determining the degree of success achieved (pg.202). The leader of the UFCW local 401 adapted traditional organizing practices to reflect the opportunities for a successful campaign. Their strategic approach to strong leadership, past learnt behaviour, and stable union structures also contribute to the successful outcomes, as does effective education and training of immigrant activists (Foster, 2016, pg.216). They learned how to build trust among the various ethnic communities. The union brought the different groups together in office gatherings or meetings. The union got involved with the member's personal gathering, such as weddings and other community events. The union also cultivated organic leaders in each of the ethnic groups and followed their advice about how to approach their community and build support (Foster, 2016, pg.208). The union was intelligent enough to figure out it was the only way it was going to happen and produced multilingual communications to reflect the 26 languages and dialects spoken at the plant (Foster, 2016, pg.208). They trained inside committee members to facilitate peer-to-peer organizing. They worked together, which anchored the drive, provided a safe space for gathering and support. So members could come and socialize, talk about their experiences at work, and debrief about organizing activities, they were instrumental. According to Foster (2016) article “many of the workers were leaders in their home communities and fought for issues they cared about” (pg.214). The workers were not afraid of conflict or standing up as they engage in leftist politics in their home country. The workers understood camaraderie; it simply manifested itself in different formations.

5. Why did race become a factor in the organizing drive and strike? According to Foster (2016) article, by 2005, half of the Lakeside workforce were immigrants as a global labor market transformed the industry leading to disadvantageous forms of working conditions for workers (pg.200,206). Hence such a work environment created a long list of grievances and concerns that fuelled their anger towards Lakeside, these problems include

health and safety concerns, unfair dismissal, employer bullying, and inconsistencies around wage rates and hours (Foster, 2016, pg.207). There were also allegations of racism in the plant since the majority of the supervisor, mostly in positions of authority, i.e safety committees, quality control, individuals who make sure the product is being processed properly, were all white people (Foster. 2016, pg.207). The Lakeside management was clearly aware of racial tension and workers disparities, however, they didn’t act quickly to reduce tension in the plant among workers. Their lack of effort to act on attitudes and treatment of employees seemed to have encouraged the continuous racism rhetoric. They were treated horrible due to their background, the conditions they worked in and often lived in as well and the lack of respect they received from Lakeside left them with no choice, but to reach out to UFCW local 401. During the strike race was a large factor because immigrant and refugee workers got different treatment than the white workers, the black workers got fired or threatened (Foster, 2016, pg.207). As shown in the film, during the strike there was an obvious divide between the immigrant workers at the picket line, and the white workers among the strike breakers. There were altercations between the picketer and the strikebreakers. The white workers were happy to work, earn money, and did see anything wrong with the working condition. However, the immigrants had nowhere to go and they couldn’t leave, as they came to work with the intention of taking care of debts and family members in their home country. The white worker didn’t understand that many of the workers were leaders in their home communities and fought for issues they cared about. They were not afraid of conflict or standing up for their rights. Foster (2016) articles states “many arrived from war-torn countries where conflict was a daily reality. Many of the workers were highly educated and some engaged in leftist politics in their home country” (pg.214). So when they realized they were in a disadvantageous position, it left them no option but to strike. As they wanted to support their colleague that was fired after the incident on April 28, 2004 where a black worker got fired after a white employee sprayed hot water on his chest (Foster, 2016, pg.206). This caused a wildcat strike by a group of 200 Lakeside workers, mostly Sudanese and after they staged a wildcat protest, “additional workers got involved and Lakeside eventually fired 60 workers”, (Foster, 2016, pg.207).

6. What motivated some workers to cross the picket line and go to work during the strike? The workers that cross the picket line maintained a belief system that even though the job duties were physically demanding and dangerous and they were well paid. They were happy with all the above and they maintained a different perspective from the strikers because the striker had more to risk than the local worker. The strikers were ultimately fighting for their basic right to safe and fair working conditions. The local workers already feel that they were well paid and the company already convinced them that the union abandoned them before and they will do the same. The local workers were citizens of Canada as they are provided with the standard of living and they are comfortable as this is their home. In addition, there could have been other

factors for those workers who crossed the picket line such as the lack of trust in the union, which is often influenced by parents or the employer. 7. What role did the state play in the dispute? Was it a constructive role? Why or Why not? I will start with the City of Brook, for the very existence of the immigrant community, they welcomed the new immigrant and that was all. The City of Brooks must have known or briefly informed about the ongoing issues at the plant but they sat back and did nothing. They continued on the elusion that the social dynamics in the City of Brocks were seen as contributing to social dynamics but the true social impact was marginalization among the immigrant community. The City of Brook could have done more for the workers health and safety in the plant. On the other hand, the Alberta government also played a tiny role in the dispute and barely enforced health and safety regulations to provide a safe working environment for workers. Upon the Union striking again “on July 20, that same day the Alberta government intervened by appointing a one-person disputes inquiry board (DIB), which prohibited strike action for two months and the Union complied”, (Foster, 2016, pg.209). After three months, the workers voted on the board recommendation, Lakeside declined. This led to another strike that re-started new negotiation. As many workers' lives hang on the ballot, the Alberta government did little to pressure Lakeside for reasonable negotiation. The role of the Alberta government wasn’t a constructive one because the Union had to file bad faith charges as the pressure wasn't enough to push Lakeside in fair negotiation. They could have appointed a mediator as they are commonly used in Canada rather than a dispute inquiry board. McQuarrie (2015) states where the parties agree and the mediator is brought into the process if a dispute arises. This is commonly used in the private sector bargaining disputes, it could have been used instead as it would have opened up communication with both parties to resolve the disputes rather than a DIB recommendation on an agreement to accept or reject, (pg.295-297).

The Alberta government played a role in the inadequate health and Safety conditions, given the conditions didn’t improve. With little enforcement on the part of the government inspection and enforcement. It's the government's duty to ensure that workers in their jurisdiction are provided with the right to work in safe conditions, which wasn’t the known fact. With known severity of injuries and illness at Lakeside, more could have been done to mitigate penalties. As a result, Lakeside should have been held accountable for their deplorable working conditions, discrimation and lack of action. The Labour unrest could have been avoided, if Lakeside was willing to concede and address the grievances in the plant. 8. What finally led to the resolution of the strike? The resolution started when Lakeside shifted their position due to the financial losses and

also the engagement of the union in provocative ads, websites and flyers created instability. So thereafter, the American counterpart owners Tyson Foods arrived to participate in the negotiations, changing the tone in the negotiation process. According to Foster (2016) article “by November 1, the two sides had a tentative agreement that provided a $1.90 raise over four years”, (pg.212). Even though the deal offered was less than the DIB recommendation, it provided the Rand Formula dues check-off and other Union rights. In addition the articles stated “on November 4, 1600 workers voted on the agreement, with 56 per cent voting to ratify. As striking workers returned to work on November 7th”, (pg. 212). It wasn't a great deal from the Union’s perspective, but it granted security for the Union and after such a gruesome ordeal they got a Collective Agreement. Hence, pushed the Union to launch a media campaign to expose Lakeside management to get media attention and put pressure on Management to get back to the bargaining table. As the film showed the strike became more intense and violent along with the fact that meat inspectors weren’t willing to inspect the plant due to the strike as the plant wasn’t running at 100 percent capacity. These factors led to the resolution of the strike. Upon reaching an agreement after so many years fighting Lakeside they were finally ready to concede to a collective agreement and the Union in turn finally got the chance to represent the workers and ensure the members' future is better than the past.

9. What does the case tell us about how the practice of Labour Relations differs from the process laid out in the textbook? The textbook focuses on Labour relations in a theoretical context of processes and procedures to be followed by the workplace which seems straightforward until reality settles in. Labour relation is very different in reality and belief becomes actionable where employers are only interested in their profit margin (Mcquarrie, 2015, pg.42). Contrary, Union and employees are interested in fair wages, benefits and equality to say the least. The Labour practices used in this case are not in the very same as the concepts in the textbook. Mcquarrie (2015) explains that a dispute inquiry board is composed of three individuals who are charged with the responsibility of gathering evidence and dispute that led to strike or lockout or bargaining breakdown and given the opportunity to vote (pg.297). However, the process wasn’t followed according to the textbook but instead the board appointed one person and that person just made a recommendation which wasn’t sufficient for the bargaining table. For the most part, Labour relations have many content revolving around the bargaining table for example capitalism where

companies are interested in ensuring that they maintain their profit margin and defy labour laws in the process that protect workers (Mcquarrie, 2015, pg.42-43). As these workers struggle to come to Canada as they have limited potential in their home countries, they must fight discrimination, racism, and workplace bully when the Labour laws are there for workers protection. 10. In your opinion what could the parties (union, emplo...