I grew up in a blue-collar household, the son of a factory worker. Both parents voted NDP for most of their lives, strong believers in the importance of “labour” representation, and strongly distrusted Liberals and Conservatives. So I was indoctrinated early. For them, the argument was mainly about adjusting power imbalances regarding things like health and safety and wage negotiations.

I like the premise of a union

In a private-sector setting, and up until about the mid-1980s, I can buy the general argument. Labour working together towards a common goal against an employer that is driven by profit at any cost. I get the rhetoric, the power to the people clarion, the rise of the Proletariat rabble-rousing.

But fewer and fewer people work in those large factories where health and safety are solely ruled by a profit-seeking employer. There are a ton of labour and environmental standards and rules that have been enacted that replace much of the concern. And when people want to claim it was unions that got that, I’m willing to nod and say sure. There are some quibbling aspects of general society progressing along, Human Rights legislation, political developments that have nothing to do with any union, but sure, I’ll give it to them. It doesn’t change the fact that a significant majority of jobs that are unionized are far more controlled in their activities by laws and regs than by an active union “holding management to account”. There’s still a role, of course, and if a union member finds something wrong, and fixes it through the union as the proper channel, great. Is the union required? I’m not sure. The number of accidents and unsafe practices in non-unionized shops tend to be about the same when you account for the size of the workforce.

To expand on that idea, if you go to the promotion sites for unions, they’ll tell you that unionized workers make more money, have pensions, greater job security, better health and safety, better hours, etc. All of which are statistically true. But once you account for the size of the workforce, a bunch of those “benefits” start to be less cause and effect and more correlation. Many of them are simply the result of having a larger workforce, which can support a union and thus attracts one, not the fact that they have the union itself. Don’t get me wrong, it doesn’t eliminate all the variables, they do produce benefits. But not as high as most individual unions want to claim. Union members pay dues and they can decide for themselves if the benefit is worth it.

But there is one thing I love about private sector unions. They almost NEVER say they are serving anyone other than themselves. They argue for increased benefits, better hours, more pay, etc., and they do so against profits or whatever. They don’t say “We’re doing this for you, the customer.” They’re honest and transparent about their motives. Unions exist both literally and legally for one purpose — to serve the membership. That’s their raison d’être. In fact, if/when they stray from that purpose, they can be sued by their members.

I am often troubled by the rhetoric of public-sector unions

When a public-sector union is entering negotiations, they alter the rhetoric of their private-sector counterparts. Instead of being transparent about their motives, they’ll wrap themselves in the flag, point out that they’re serving Canadians and that they and they alone are standing up for individuals. It’s complete BS, to be blunt. Nobody elected them, they weren’t chosen democratically to represent Canadians, we have those people, they actually ran for election. And won. They and they alone have the right to say they represent Canadians. Did you vote for another party? Great, doesn’t change the fact that nobody elected a union. And Canadians don’t get to vote for what the union is seeking.

Teachers’ unions are notorious for this. They will post manifestos about how they’re all altruistic and that they’re striking to ensure small class sizes to protect your child’s education. They fail to mention a small self-interest there that if class sizes could be reduced to 20 instead of 25, they would get to hire 20% more dues-paying teachers.

Nurses will rally around wait times, all for you as a patient, but forget to mention that reducing wait times often involves hiring more nurses or giving them more hours and overtime.

Everyone does it in public-sector negotiations and sabre-rattling. Pick a sector, find a service, and the union will rally around the benefit to the public. All while failing to be transparent about how it benefits the members even more so.

But two things trouble me more about the posturing and rhetoric. I’ll leave the second one to the end, it’s a values and ethics issue for me. However, the first is that most of what they claim to be negotiating is within the employer’s purview alone. For lack of a better term, a management decision, even though the union tries to pretend otherwise even to its own members.

In the current federal climate, the unions have said, “We’ll negotiate on return-to-the-office!”. Except there is zero legal footing for such a claim. It is relatively black letter labour law that place of work is a management decision. Sure, the unions might gain a bit of noise around the fact that the change happened during negotiations when terms of work are not supposed to change unilaterally, but in the end, it’ll just be noise.

Yet unions tell their members they’ll reverse RTO, reduce class sizes, and reduce wait times. Right up until the employer says, “Can I offer you an extra half percent in wages?” and suddenly, the unions all fold like a house of cards. Because they knew they could never win on the issues. Instead, they get a vague promise from the employers to review something or another, so the union can save face, but the win is suddenly all about the wages.

I hate the phrase, “When someone tells you it’s not about the money, it’s about the money”, I find it too simplistic for most situations. Often times, it ISN’T about the money, even though money is inextricably involved. However, it seems like for almost all union negotiations, it is just about the money. That’s literally the bottom line. So I tend to get really uncomfortable when unions pretend otherwise, that they’re somehow better than other unions, that they’re serving Canadians, really, they’re here to help everyone. And to be honest, not always sticklers for accurate messaging and facts.

But the legal requirement for a public-sector union is the same as it is for a private-sector union. They are not political parties, they are not charities, they are not NGOs dealing with social issues. They are an association representing members and have to do what is in the members’ best interests.

Yes, I still pay my dues and even registered as a member

When I started in the government, I was a member of PSAC. And I hated the union with a passion. Some of the stuff I saw them do was, well, obscene. Picking and choosing types of employees to help based on their base salary. Literally telling a pregnant PM-05 that she already made enough money so they wouldn’t help her with a blatant discrimination situation because there were all these AS-01s who would love to have her problems.

Or the outright lies to members about the state of pay equity negotiations that resulted in TBS actually finding a loophole in the negotiation rules. Normally, when a negotiation occurs, the employer cannot communicate directly with members. They can ONLY communicate with the negotiators. However, the union can do/say almost whatever it wants. And at the time, they did. Blatant misrepresentation and misinformation while holding thousands of cheques hostage, pretending it was TBS refusing to pay. So TBS managed to find a loophole — instead of communicating with members, they instead reported to Parliament on the state of negotiations, and released the real offer they had shared so members saw it anyway. In an era before social media, with limited ability to share stuff as easily as it is now, the TBS release still managed to go viral in some communities. With a lot of really ticked-off staff waiting on cheques, horrified to find out that TBS had offered to release the cheques on the already-settled claims so that people could get the money, and had even moved the money to accounts ready to go out with the push of a button. But PSAC told them no, while simultaneously claiming TBS was stalling and didn’t want to pay. Some members were none too happy. Others swallowed the lies hook, line and sinker, “my union, do or die”.

I saw the previous strike while at then Foreign Affairs. One of the more vocal members was rabidly nuts. She would take a baseball bat, and a football helmet, and spit on anyone who tried to cross the line, even though the majority of people were NOT members of PSAC and were not on strike. I have no clue how she didn’t get arrested or worse. I find it challenging to respect a claim to be representing anyone while spitting on people and threatening them with baseball bats.

So, with that background, when I switched to the EC category, I was VERY happy to transfer my dues to CAPE. Why? Mostly because they weren’t PSAC. In fact, for a lot of CAPE members, that’s actually our unofficial motto. “We’re not PSAC.” Some ex PSACers think the PSAC executive are all nuts. New, old, doesn’t matter. One tar, one brush.

I was happy with CAPE, as they were cheaper, for one thing. PSAC is one of the most expensive unions, and if you’re in the AS or PM category and in lower levels, they’ll represent you well. If you’re not, well, let’s say there are a lot of people with views about a multi-class system. And don’t get me wrong, those AS-01s and PM-02s NEED good representation on pay. But if you pay your union over $1000 a year, and not one of those groups, you might want some services too. Over 25-30K in a lifetime of dues? Yeah, that starts to get a bit shocking.

For me, I’m fine to be part of a generally sleepy union. I pay my dues, I even registered to join. Why? So I could get updates. They do the negotiations without being rabid about pretending to save the world as they do it. They’re a little aggressive but not crazy aggressive. And for the most part, they help people figure out labour relations issues with a side of representation.

To me, partly because of my HR guide, I see the benefits of people helping other people in the public service. I don’t care which union they’re part of, I don’t care much about unions overall. I have views, sure. But I don’t care if others are passionate about it. I’ve been approached by three different unions to see if I am willing to develop a special guide for THEIR union, one that they wouldn’t share with non-members, and I always say no. I have no interest in that, even if they’re willing to pay me. If someone invites me to present somewhere, as long as it isn’t too “unionish”, I’ll present. It is kind of my civil servant equivalent of being impartial amongst various factions. I’m agnostic, in the end.

I guess I wish that the unions did more of the type of stuff I do. Including more explanation and transparent outreach to answer questions from members. There are a lot of people right now struggling with understanding Return to the Office, Work from Home, Duty to Accommodate, etc. and the unions are telling them, “Absolutely, file your DTA, we’ll help you get that approved, all good”. Except they won’t and they can’t, in most of the situations. People are getting NO push back from the union to understand how DTA actually works, and that the likelihood of success is extremely low for the types of issues people are pursuing. When it goes bust later, some people are going to have huge mental health letdowns. Pushing is good, sure, but pushing without realism is dangerous. I think it’s potentially devastating, but well, in the end, those members have a right to pursue their interests even if I think it will end up badly for them. I don’t want to run the union, I’m happy just to vote on stuff.

Yet CAPE still plays games, and to be honest, it seems almost rampant in all unions. Some are run relatively cleanly for a few years at a time, and then maybe it’s simply that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It seems like someone is running the union, and they want to get more done, so they try to put key people into key positions to make that happen. Building a functioning executive. And then some other members start to view it as someone’s private little fiefdom, where decisions are rubber-stamped instead of debated, and decisions are taken in back rooms rather than in the meetings. It happens in many. CAPE and PSAC have gone through their leadership scandals, but unless one is willing to get involved oneself, it’s a little too easy to throw stones at the outcomes.

Even though there are two things that bother me

There are two medium-sized things within CAPE that annoy me. Not enough to withdraw as a member, but they really gall me for their almost arrogance.

A couple of years ago, CAPE wanted to join the Canadian Labour Congress. Many of the members asked, rather indelicately, what the heck? It creates no direct benefit to members, and nobody appointed CAPE as our political representatives. CLC is quite often far more political than most members are comfortable with their union being, partly because members do NOT all share the same political views. Some are quite opposed to much of what CLC stands for and advocates, so it was rejected at least once before it was later approved in a subsequent year. A number of members noted that it had already been decided and rejected, but came back and passed.

However, the bigger complaint is how they approach increases to dues. The union executive wants to increase dues, partly for inflation and partly for the increase in services to members for labour relations issues, etc., and I happen to agree it probably needs to happen.

They initially proposed increases and the membership said “no”. Then they proposed another increase and the members said “no”. So they got creative and tried to make the dues proportional to salary so all the junior members would pay small amounts and more senior members would pay more…in other words, drastically increasing costs to long-time members while providing no additional service to any of them. Again, the membership said “no”.

Last year, or maybe the year before, they came up with a new idea. They proposed not only adding a dues increase, but going back and making it retroactive something like 7 years, overturning all the previous decisions by members when they had said no, and then catching up again. Members said no, and rather emphatically as I recall. Some of the discussion was around the legal implications of a union continuing to revisit previous decisions that had already been taken.

This year, I understand the current proposal is again going to be an increase, linked to a larger budget so that it isn’t a separate vote (i.e., if you approve the budget, you approve the increase; if you decline the increase, you also decline the overall budget), and adding in a request to make it indexed for inflation. The idea of indexing dues for inflation, when the members’ own salaries are not indexed, seems a bit cheeky.

To be blunt, I don’t think the dues issue is a difficult one. They have not had a dues increase and there is lots of work to be done. So, instead of playing silly games, the easiest way to get a dues increase is to give people an option — let them vote separately for a small increase, a medium increase or a large increase. If there is a zero increase option, show what will get cut. Yet nobody seems inclined to communicate openly with the members to say, “here’s our core business, everything else is above the line and can’t be done without an increase”. If you want more money in a membership organization, all you have to do is show the members what they get for their existing dues and what will be cut without an increase/what will be added with an increase. It’s not rocket science, it’s basic governance. If the members want it, they’ll approve; if they don’t, they won’t. Unions, NGOs, associations, all of them face similar issues. And the recommendation in the academic literature is always the same. Transparency, and “zero-based budgeting” for what is covered and what is not, with anything “extra” being heavily scrutinized. You don’t get to bury CLC in the core budget and then put labour relations officers in the “extra” column (also called the “Musical Ride Gambit” that the RCMP used to do on budget reviews).

The dues issues drive me bonkers. If it wasn’t that the base budget pays for labour relations help for members who need it, I’d be tempted to either try to get involved to stop it, fix it, etc. or withdraw from the union.

All of which pales compared to a values and ethics issue

So, I’m bullish on the theory of unions, like their contribution to wage negotiations and labour relations, and a shifting of power. I don’t think we should nominate all unions for sainthood, and public-sector unions, least of all with the rhetoric. But rhetoric is where I come to my biggest problem.

I’ll accept the argument that public services are important. Nursing, education, and the public sector in general.

I believe realistically in the power of the state to make huge differences in people’s lives for better or for worse, and that working to make sure that it is “for the better” is critical. I don’t think we should have bigger government than we can afford, I’m not an advocate for the approaches of the Nordics or most of the EU, I’m fine to go with some sort of happy medium. I suspect that the current size of the state is too large to be sustainable.

But after we go through those arguments, and I accept them, where I end up is simple.

Public services are essential.

I know, not everyone will agree with that. Some might say “essential is as essential does” in some altered Forrest Gump-esque world or that all services are essential but some are more essential than others (with a mis-nod to George Orwell).

I’m willing to say though that if the politicians are running a program and haven’t cut it, then they have determined that it is, in fact, essential.

But here’s the rub. If it is essential, then we can’t go on strike. We can’t have those two mutually exclusive thoughts together.

You are either essential and can’t withhold services under any circumstances (outside of a national disaster) including striking, or you can go on strike, and then you’re not an essential service.

Teachers are the ones that I relate to the most on this. I am fully on board to say teachers are an essential service provider. Super important, no substitution, no alternative, can’t be tossed aside. We need them. But then they tell me that students are so important, the children are our future, and so they’re striking and providing no service to those kids?

My mind literally cannot accept both premises. To me, it is like a doctor not providing help to a sick patient in an ER. Sorry, yes, you need me, but I’m not going to help you, someone didn’t pay me enough this week. Hippocratic oath, be damned.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to disenfranchise anyone in a public-sector union. I’m willing to accept that they CAN have a right to strike. But as soon as they do, to me, they are admitting they are no longer essential. And thus are not a whole lot different than a private-sector union. Forget the flag waving, forget any special status.

I’m fine with any other form of engagement. Just not withholding an essential service. There’s a word for that. Extortion.

Where does that leave me?

I’ve been fortunate on two fronts. As a member of CAPE, the union dues are relatively under control and the constant tweaking / governance issues are not enough for me to say “see ya later”. I get nervous when a union starts to get political, similar to some of the horror stories from California union issues. I get even MORE nervous when they start to make decisions on behalf of members without actually TALKING to members to find out what their views are. However, while all of it is annoying, it is not enough to create an existential crisis. If I had a choice, I’d probably choose not to be a member, but I’m fine paying dues to help with labour relations issues. And I get to vote on all the issues, as a member, so I can shake it off.

The second front that has benefited me in my squirrel brain is that CAPE has not voted to strike, and based on past years, not likely to do so anytime soon. CAPE members tend to be less militant than other unions, for good or bad, and so I don’t face the ultimate test. I don’t have to say, “Okay, dude, is this a real principle or are you just blowing smoke?”.

I suspect in the event of a vote to strike, I would end my membership and likely pursue becoming a RAND deductee…I’d still be able to vote on striking or not, I’d still have dues deducted, but I wouldn’t be a full member of the union. I’d be a dues-paying “pseudo-member” because the law says I have to pay. Yeah, I know, it’s only a symbolic gesture, in some ways, since you still have to pay and you still benefit from the collective bargaining.

I’m not sure that I’m willing to go to the “full level” of conscientiously objecting to the dues to avoid having them go to them at all (in unique circumstances, they can be routed to a charity instead). But it would be closer to my real feelings. I just haven’t had to face it yet.

I guess in the end, I feel like I’m bending my ethics more than breaking them. And as always, my view is inward, not outward. I don’t care what others choose. If they want to strike? Go for it. None of my business.

I just don’t want people trying to convince me they’re doing it for Canadians. It doesn’t tend to ring true when the final offer is accepted. And I don’t want my union to decide to withdraw essential services.