Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Congrats to the Liberals. Is the Liberal Win "Undemocratic"?

by David Doorey October 7, 2011
written by David Doorey October 7, 2011

Fun election last night. Congrats to Dalton and his Liberals for another win. Pretty impressive to win three elections in a row.
After the last Federal election, I did a post that got some people all hot and bothered (mostly Tory supporters). I pointed out that the Tories won a majority even though only 24% of Canadians voted for them. I was making a labour law point by reference to the political system. I’ll make the same point again using the Liberal win.

Quick, what percentage of eligible Canadian voters voted for the Liberals yesterday?
Answer:  18.5 percent.   About 17% voted Tory, and about 11% voted NDP. Since only about 49 percent of eligible voters cast ballots, these are the numbers you get based on the percentage of votes cast for each party.

The labour law point is this: Our labour law model grants authority to unions to represent workers if they have the support of more than half of the workers.  That’s called a majority.  If a clear majority of workers at a given workplace indicate that they wish to be represented by a union, then the union becomes the representative of all of the workers, even those who did not wish to be represented by the union.  So, in a workplace of 100 employees, if 51 or 55 want the union,  then the union represents all 100.   That is how a democratic process works, right?
But critics of unions and collective bargaining argue all the time that this process is “undemocratic”, because it “forces” workers to accept a union as their representative when they don’t want that.  Once elected by a majority of workers, the union attempts to bargains rules (in a collective agreement), and if a majority of workers like what the union has bargained, they “ratify” the collective agreement in another majority rules vote (a ratification vote).  If a majority of workers ratify the collective agreement, then the rules in it will govern all the workers, even those that did not vote for the collective agreement.  This too is argued to be undemocratic by the anti-union folks, because it permits rules to be imposed by a majority “against the will of the minority”.
Whatever you say about the collective bargaining process, you will not persuade me that the process is undemocratic.  Unions obtain their authority by constantly testing the employees’ wishes–they have to win certification votes, collective agreement ratification votes, strike votes, and “decertification” votes–and voter turnout in those votes is almost always 100% or close to it,  in sharp contrast to political elections.  The Liberals gain the authority to pass laws and run a province by collecting votes on behalf of 18 percent of Ontarians?   The Federal Tories win a majority with the support of only  24% of Canadians.
So,  are decisions by a union that have the support of a majority of workers more or less democratic than decisions and actions taken by a government that has the support of less than 20 percent of Ontarians?
Perhaps the argument isn’t that unions are ‘undemocratic’ (as commentator Dennis suggests), but it is that the rules that govern the setting of terms and conditions of employment shouldn’t be set by a democratic system at all.  Perhaps the argument is that each employee should be able to determine their own conditions of work, without a union if they don’t want a union.  That is a very different argument altogether.  That is an argument against a democratic majority rules process, and in favour of another model based purely on individual choice.  Fine, if that is the argument.  Then we can debate whether democracy is unsuitable for some decisions. But tell me that a system is undemocratic just because the minority doesn’t always get their own way.
Would you prefer that option of whether to have your conditions of work determined by collective bargaining be an individual choice, as opposed to a democratically chosen one?  How would that approach change how our model works in North America?

4 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Time to Order the NBA Back to Work!
next post
We're Hiring. Deadline is October 31st.

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.