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

The Ontario Tories Announce Some Odd Workplace Law Platforms

by David Doorey June 1, 2011
written by David Doorey June 1, 2011

I’m just back from my travels of Italy, and I need to catch up on what I missed in workplace law while I was gone. For example, I was amused to read about the Ontario Conservative Party’s new election platforms, which have some workplace law components to it. There’s the usual tax cut promises that every Conservative government drags out as a cure for all that ails society.  But there’s also some curious tidbits, such as the promise to force prisoners to work 40 hours a week doing jobs that could be done by the thousands of people currently unemployed and looking for work.
Did I read that correctly? Perhaps my English has gotten rusty from too much Italian.  I can’t find the details of this whacky idea in the P.C. webpage, but I’d have thought that a party that is promising to tackle unemployment and “reward hard work” would see a problem with ordering prisoners to perform work for free that could be done by paid workers who need jobs.  Is  grass cutting, garbage collections,  and graffiti removal something that paid workers are incapable of performing, or that the market can’t provide?  How exactly is the economy stimulated by giving jobs to unpaid forced labourers who are excluded from all employment law protections?  [See section 5 of the Employment Standards Act, for example, which excludes inmates from ESA coverage]. Apparently while I was sipping Valpolicella in Venice, prisoner idleness became an important labour policy issue in Ontario.
As did that old thorn in the side of politicians who believe that tax cuts and forced prison labour are the answers to societies ills:  the labour movement.  I saw this morning that Tim Hudak, leader of the Ontario Conservative Party, has been sulking about ads funded by a union led coalition group called Working Families that depict him as being in the pockets of the business lobby.  I’m for getting rid of ALL attack ads like these, to be honest.  They add nothing to political debate and serve only to further harm the very low impression people have of the political profession.  And the Tories dish it out as much, if not more, than any of the parties.

But Hudak’s feelings have been hurt, so the Tories have been spending loads of money in an election year hiring lawyers to try and stop the ads from being run.
And now  he  is promising to pass a law if elected that would allow unionized workers to opt out of paying that portion of union dues used for political causes they don’t agree with.  Not sure how that would work exactly, but such a law would almost certainly lead to a Charter challenge by the unions.  We’d have to see how the law was drafted to assess whether  it would survive a Charter challenge.
The Supreme Court of Canada long ago ruled that it is not a violation of a unionized worker’s Charter rights to be required to pay union dues that are then used by the Union to advance political causes with which the  worker disagrees.  The decision was called Lavigne v. OPSEU. The Court ruled that unions play an important role in political discussion and that influencing politics is one way that unions advance their members interests. Justices Wilson and L’Heureux-Dube JJ.  noted that “the interests of labour do not end at some artificial boundary between the economic and the political.”   Engagement in political debate and lobbying is all part and parcel of the job of unions in advancing the interests of their members, the Court ruled:

Unions’ decisions to involve themselves in politics by supporting particular causes, candidates or parties, stem from a recognition of the expansive character of the interests of labour and a perception of collective bargaining as a process which is meant to foster more than mere economic gain for workers.  From involvement in union locals through to participation in the larger activities of the union movement the current collective bargaining regime enhances not only the economic interests of labour but also the interest of working people in preserving some dignity in their working lives.

Do you think it is wrong for unions to contribute funds to support political parties or policies that they believe advance their members’ interests?
What do you think of the Tories’ two policies–forced prison labour and an opt-out rule for union dues put to political causes?
 

1 comment
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
See you in Florence!
next post
Some Great New Workplace Law Resources

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 219 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.