Having no say in how the union operates tops reasons why non-union members don't want one
Canadians still appreciate and need some form of workplace advocacy, even if they’re only lukewarm to the idea of unions, a labour-sponsored poll has found.
While one out of three unorganized workers would vote for a union, more than twice as many would prefer an employee association that represents employees and takes up problems with supervisors and managers, according to a poll of 2,000 Canadian adults.
The poll was conducted in August for the Canadian Labour Congress by Toronto-based Vector Research. Roughly 1,200 or 60 per cent of the respondents were in the workforce; of the working respondents, the split between unionized and non-unionized workers was roughly 30 to 70.
When non-union members were asked for a major reason why they would not likely vote for a union, topping the list was the emphasis unions place on seniority above initiative or merit for promotions. Among unionized respondents, the top reason why they wouldn’t likely vote for a union was having no say in how the union operates.
“What I always find surprising is so many people think if there was promotion based on merit that they would be the ones getting promoted,” Canadian Labour Congress senior economist Andrew Jackson said half-jokingly. He added that the public may be misinformed about the importance of seniority in promotions.
“When it comes to promotions, whether seniority comes into play varies a great deal under different collective agreements, so there aren’t very many cast-iron seniority rules.”
The poll’s results also contain several indications that people appreciate some of the benefits of belonging to a union. Almost two out of three (63 per cent) respondents agreed that it’s worthwhile belonging to a union to get advice and information about pay, benefits, pensions, safety and their rights at work, even if the union doesn’t get employees higher pay.
When asked to identify workplace conditions that unions make “a lot better,” respondents ranked health and safety, job security and benefits as the top three. When asked what unions make worse, respondents ranked the prospects for advancement, amount of pressure employees are under and the way supervisors respond to feedback as the top three.
The poll was released along with a statistical study, co-authored by Jackson, showing union density falling from 33.7 per cent in 1997 to 32.2 per cent in 2002. Union density is a measure of the proportion of union members in the labour force. While the number of union members grew by 350,000 to 4.2 million workers during that period, union density can fall as the number of jobs created outpaces the number of workers joining unions.
Union coverage notched a small increase in construction and finance sectors and in a number of public sectors such as education, health and welfare, and public administration. However, union coverage fell in all other sectors, including those that have traditionally lent strong support to unions, namely manufacturing, transportation and utilities (see table).
“What struck me was the decline in private-sector union density has been greatest in areas where the labour movement has been traditionally strong,” said Jackson, who co-authored the union-density analysis. One possible reason for this decline, he wrote, is the growth of professional and white-collar jobs in these industries. Jackson added that he sees in these figures the lesson that “we need to redouble our efforts in the manufacturing sector, given that there has been a lot of job growth there in recent years.”
Also, organizing efforts among precarious and low-paid workers in private services “have paid off to a degree,” said Jackson. And looking at professional and high-tech industries, where “unions have been weak, one wonders whether a new model of union is needed,” he added.
Lloyd Field, consultant and author of Unions Are Not Inevitable, said the figures confirm his impression that union coverage is already on par with the level of union interest — at roughly one in three workers. But as recruitment results plateau, he sees unions getting into “designer boutique” issues — issues beyond pay, benefits and seniority.
He cited an example of a union that was recruiting at a long-term health facility. “They spent more time with the internal organizers, the ones starting the campaign, to find out what the issues really are, and to address those issues upfront,” said Field.
“And looking at some of the literature that union organizers are presenting to their employees, there seems to be a greater sensitivity to issues such as health and safety — although that’s not new — the quality of work-life balance, which is new. In one instance, I’ve seen a union trying to get a discussion going around the question of merit pay.”
What that means for HR professionals is they have to become better employee advocates, he sums up.
“If HR people don’t see themselves as advocates for employees, then they’re letting their employee population down and opening the door for unions,” said Field.
While one out of three unorganized workers would vote for a union, more than twice as many would prefer an employee association that represents employees and takes up problems with supervisors and managers, according to a poll of 2,000 Canadian adults.
The poll was conducted in August for the Canadian Labour Congress by Toronto-based Vector Research. Roughly 1,200 or 60 per cent of the respondents were in the workforce; of the working respondents, the split between unionized and non-unionized workers was roughly 30 to 70.
When non-union members were asked for a major reason why they would not likely vote for a union, topping the list was the emphasis unions place on seniority above initiative or merit for promotions. Among unionized respondents, the top reason why they wouldn’t likely vote for a union was having no say in how the union operates.
“What I always find surprising is so many people think if there was promotion based on merit that they would be the ones getting promoted,” Canadian Labour Congress senior economist Andrew Jackson said half-jokingly. He added that the public may be misinformed about the importance of seniority in promotions.
“When it comes to promotions, whether seniority comes into play varies a great deal under different collective agreements, so there aren’t very many cast-iron seniority rules.”
The poll’s results also contain several indications that people appreciate some of the benefits of belonging to a union. Almost two out of three (63 per cent) respondents agreed that it’s worthwhile belonging to a union to get advice and information about pay, benefits, pensions, safety and their rights at work, even if the union doesn’t get employees higher pay.
When asked to identify workplace conditions that unions make “a lot better,” respondents ranked health and safety, job security and benefits as the top three. When asked what unions make worse, respondents ranked the prospects for advancement, amount of pressure employees are under and the way supervisors respond to feedback as the top three.
The poll was released along with a statistical study, co-authored by Jackson, showing union density falling from 33.7 per cent in 1997 to 32.2 per cent in 2002. Union density is a measure of the proportion of union members in the labour force. While the number of union members grew by 350,000 to 4.2 million workers during that period, union density can fall as the number of jobs created outpaces the number of workers joining unions.
Union coverage notched a small increase in construction and finance sectors and in a number of public sectors such as education, health and welfare, and public administration. However, union coverage fell in all other sectors, including those that have traditionally lent strong support to unions, namely manufacturing, transportation and utilities (see table).
“What struck me was the decline in private-sector union density has been greatest in areas where the labour movement has been traditionally strong,” said Jackson, who co-authored the union-density analysis. One possible reason for this decline, he wrote, is the growth of professional and white-collar jobs in these industries. Jackson added that he sees in these figures the lesson that “we need to redouble our efforts in the manufacturing sector, given that there has been a lot of job growth there in recent years.”
Also, organizing efforts among precarious and low-paid workers in private services “have paid off to a degree,” said Jackson. And looking at professional and high-tech industries, where “unions have been weak, one wonders whether a new model of union is needed,” he added.
Lloyd Field, consultant and author of Unions Are Not Inevitable, said the figures confirm his impression that union coverage is already on par with the level of union interest — at roughly one in three workers. But as recruitment results plateau, he sees unions getting into “designer boutique” issues — issues beyond pay, benefits and seniority.
He cited an example of a union that was recruiting at a long-term health facility. “They spent more time with the internal organizers, the ones starting the campaign, to find out what the issues really are, and to address those issues upfront,” said Field.
“And looking at some of the literature that union organizers are presenting to their employees, there seems to be a greater sensitivity to issues such as health and safety — although that’s not new — the quality of work-life balance, which is new. In one instance, I’ve seen a union trying to get a discussion going around the question of merit pay.”
What that means for HR professionals is they have to become better employee advocates, he sums up.
“If HR people don’t see themselves as advocates for employees, then they’re letting their employee population down and opening the door for unions,” said Field.
