June 26, 2007
Kamloops Daily News


I'm not surprised at the Supreme Court ruling but apparently
the B.C. government was. The court ruled that that Premier
Campbell acted illegally when he tore up collective
agreements with Bill 29.

Health Minister George Abbott pondered his next move:
"Government will need to study the decision, take some time
to review the implications and determine how we will go
forward."

As Abbot thinks about it, health care workers continue to be
laid off. According to the Hospital Employees Union, 30
care aids will be laid off at MSA Manor in Abbotsford. In
the past six weeks, nearly 700 workers have been laid off
due to Bill 29. This brings the total to 8,000, mostly of
those women.

While Abbott fiddles, workers get burned.

British Colombians think it's wrong. A recent survey
revealed that 80 per cent of British Columbians believe
firings should stop in light of the Supreme Court ruling.

What was the new Liberal government thinking when they
alienated so many workers?

Was it bad advice? Michael Walker and his right-wing think
tank, the Fraser Institute provided guidance. They provided
"calculations" that "gave ample reason for the new
government to doubt that the contracts were done in the
public interest. Unionized workers providing exactly the
same services in private sector hotels were paid much less
than unionized hospital workers."

If the problem was wage inequality, then the problem could
have been handled by increasing minimum wages. That would
have leveled the playing field by filling in the low spots,
not slashing the tops.

"These weren't contracts in the ordinary sense," Walker
continues, "They were government policy, and government
policy can change when the government changes. That's all
that happened."

Huh? Collective agreements are legally binding contracts,
not at the whim of the favour-of-the-day government. It
would be chaotic if laws changed with government. Campbell
didn't have to listen to bad advice.

Was it revenge? Abbott explains: "A lot of flexibility had
disappeared under the collective agreements under the former
NDP government." Unionized workers needed to be punished
because they supported the NDP?

And what does Abbott mean by flexibility? Government's
ability to find creative solutions in the delivery of public
health care is not restricted by workers who receive a
working wage.

Abbott's response is remarkably similar to Walker's. The
minister of health justifies Bill 29 by arguing that those
contracts were signed by a previous government which was
supported by labour. "One arm of the trade union movement
was telling another arm of the movement, the NDP government,
what to do."

I see. There are two possible governments in B.C.; one
which is controlled by trade unions the other which
controlled of the Fraser Institute.

Of course, Abbott's explanation is just as simplistic as my
corollary is flippant. But it does suggest two views of
labour in B.C.

One view is that workers are expendable; mere cogs in the
machinery of industry that can be replaced when worn out.
In this view workers are at the mercy of the marketplace.
Wages are determined by the supply and demand for labour.
Low wages are business-friendly.

The other view is that well-paid workers are the foundation
of society. They provide a stable base to the economy.
Their spending power sustains business during slow periods.
Fairly-paid workers are less likely to depend on social
assistance. And since they are not living in poverty, they
are healthier and less likely to be a burden on our health
care system. As well, they are less likely to resort to
criminal activities.

The Supreme Court adds to this view by including worker's
rights. In their recent decision, they ruled: "The right to
bargain collectively with an employer enhances the human
dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers by giving them the
opportunity to influence the establishment of the workplace
rules and thereby gain some control over a major aspect of
their lives, namely their work."

Since the Liberals formed government, poverty has increased
in B.C. relative to the rest of Canada. Cuts to wages and
social programs have especially hurt women. According to
Jane Pulkingham, a sociology professor at Simon Fraser
University, the percentage of single parent mothers living
in poverty is 36 per cent higher than the rest of Canada
since 2001.

If poverty was an unintended consequence of Campbell's
action, he can redeem himself by restoring the collective
agreements.
 

David Charbonneau is the owner of Trio Technical.
He can be reached at dcharbonneau13@shaw.ca

go back to my Columns in the