Anti-Union intimidation and Brantford to phase in rate increase

Anti-Union Intimidation? Sutherland Global will pack it in if unionized

Disenchanted workers at Windsor’s new call center operated by Sutherland Global have stated they have approached the CAW to organise the Windsor location.

After reading Gord Henderson’s column today, I have to wonder why the columnist chose to disclose what company executives said. Basically, executives threatened they would “pack it in” in Windsor if the “Windsor operation becomes unionized.” According to Henderson:

But, and there’s always a but, Stuewe and Madden were adamant the company will pack it in if the Windsor operation becomes unionized. “There’s only one event that could precipitate that decision (to leave) and make no mistake. That would happen,” said Stuewe. He said the company is “performance-based” and could not survive being organized, given that it services clients trying to “get out from under” such constraints.

The mea culpa has been issued… Give them a second chance? That sure beats adding a thousand names to the Windsor unemployment and welfare rolls.

My interpretation in a nut-shell: Sutherland workers if you unionize you’ll be destined for the welfare rolls. I have to ask, would the CAW consider this a threat or intimidation tactics? Did Gord Henderson seal the fate for employees at Sutherland Global? Or perhaps it was simply growing pains, for executives to make such a foolish statement. I ask, only because of this section of the Ontario Labour Relations Act:

70. No employer or employers’ organization and no person acting on behalf of an employer or an employers’ organization shall participate in or interfere with the formation, selection or administration of a trade union or the representation of employees by a trade union or contribute financial or other support to a trade union, but nothing in this section shall be deemed to deprive an employer of the employer’s freedom to express views so long as the employer does not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence. 1995, c. 1, Sched. A, s. 70.

Section 72 (c) also states:

Employers not to interfere with employees’ rights

72. No employer, employers’ organization or person acting on behalf of an employer or an employers’ organization,

(c) shall seek by threat of dismissal, or by any other kind of threat, or by the imposition of a pecuniary or other penalty, or by any other means to compel an employee to become or refrain from becoming or to continue to be or to cease to be a member or officer or representative of a trade union or to cease to exercise any other rights under this Act. 1995, c. 1, Sched. A, s. 72.

There is nothing stopping an employer for stating they do not want a trade union. However, how I read Henderson’s column, the Sutherland executives were threatening to pack it in – and Gord Henderson gave them a platform from which to shout out their threat.

Individual thoughts and feelings about organised labour are irrelevant, in my opinion. The law guarantees a worker’s right to organize – like it or not. What Henderson did, in my opinion, was irresponsible and could very tip the scales in favour of unionization at Sutherland Global. Insofar as Sutherland Global – the company in receipt of provincial subsidies, their public statement too, was very irresponsible.

However, in a prior blog, I did express caution in celebrating the establishment of call centers in Windsor:

Professor Balka, professor of Communication at Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, claims that the “industry is highly footloose, and the jobs which have been created may not necessarily be permanent or secure.” She cites the example of ICT Canada Marketing which received a public subsidy to move to New Brunswick in 1995 and abruptly declared itself out of business in 1999, after unionized workers spoke of a sweat-shop environment, with high turnover and heavy pressure to produce sales.

Sounds very familiar, at least according to a some local workers. Was Sutherland’s threat to pack it in and idle one? For the sake of over a thousand workers I hope so. Windsor does not need any more bad news.

But I do wonder, what will our Windsor and District Labour Council endorsed councilors do, especially in Ward 2 where the call center is situated?

Brantford to phase in water rate increase

Somebody smack me! I must be dreaming – open and transparent government presenting simple facts? Thanks to a reader who pointed out this article in the Brantford Expositer on August 28, 2007.

According to the article, the City of Brantford must invest over $300 million in upgrading their system:

The average resident’s annual bill for water and sewer costs will jump to more than $1,100 from about $575 over the next 10 years under a plan narrowly backed Monday by the city’s operations and administration committee. The plan still must be ratified by city council…that money will be raised through increased water and sewer rates.

Wow – imagine that – discussing the issue in the press BEFORE the rate increases are ratified. Furthermore, it boggles the mind that the plan must be ratified by city council – in the public eye.

According to Sandra Lawson, the city’s general manager of engineering and operations:

…the hikes are necessary.

“We have been doing a good job of replacing our infrastructure over the years but unfortunately even at that we haven’t been keeping up,” she said.

“We have a $40-million expansion to our water treatment facility right now that’s being debentured and we have a $10-million upgrade to our sewage treatment plant that’s also being debentured.”

On top of that, some of the city’s infrastructure dates back to the 1890s. And the city also must be able to handle growth, she said.

And then the excerpt that caused me to go through the roof:

Under the plan, water and sewer rates will increase gradually over the next 10 years.

In Windsor, we get political spin and justification AFTER the rate increases have been approved – with no public input. Furthermore, resident’s are denied an opportunity to ask pertinent questions or offer alternative methods – and when they attempt to do so, they get distorted information or council procedure waved under their nose.

Finally, what really caused my blood to boil, was that Windsor had a plan initiated back in 2002 to phase in rate increases. But for “political” reasons, according to our Mayor, this did not happen. In fact, our Mayor froze rates and stated he hoped rates could be lowered – when clearly the need was dire back in 2002.

It’s shameful. Open and transparent government exists elsewhere – and in Windsor we get information after the decisions have been made.