Time - For A Change

Time was, a company had the freedom to pursue its endless quest for profit without the encumbrance of legislation to protect workers. Great commercial empires were built on the backs of the workers, who were often abused to the point of incapacity and then discarded in favor of fresher, younger recruits. They did not own the process, but were consumed by it, while the owners profited greatly. The only legislation then in existence was the Master and Servant Act. A wonderful law, for the Masters - not so good for the Servants, who worked 16-hour days under horrific conditions, and received pitiful wages.

With the advent of Trade Unions in the waning days of the 19th century, some of these things began to change. The process of change was not without cost, but it is not my purpose today to detail the heroism or sacrifices of early trade unionists. Suffice it to say that, as a result of Union efforts, Governments (acting on behalf of Big Business) brought forward new legislation meant to control Unions while legitimizing them. Unions, after this time, would no longer be considered as subversive organizations in restraint of free trade, but they would be required to follow the rules set out in the legislation as dictated to Government by Business. Still, it was a significant improvement and enabled Unions to sucessfully pursue a better deal for their members. They were so successful, in fact, that the coalition of Government and Business sought to undermine the Unions' efforts by enacting more legislation, which would provide many of the hard-won benefits Unions had fought for, to workers who did not even belong to Unions. This legislation is the subject of today's editorial. I refer to the Employment Standards Act (R.S.O. 2000).

It is logical that union members, who understand that the Employment Standards Act only exists for the purpose of limiting the influence of labour organizations (by providing non-union workers with the bare minimum of benefits), would seek to obtain in their collective agreements benefits far greater than those provided under the ESA. And yet, after the latest government effort of fine-tuning the Act (to provide for new regulations of hours of work and rest), the Amalgamated Transit Union and the Toronto Transit Commission appear to be doing their best to arrange a situation whereby transit workers will be treated worse than non-union workers, if the status quo is maintained. There can be no argument that the schedules in present usage will no longer be acceptable under the new provisions of the ESA. However, it should be noted for the record, that these changes came into effect eighteen months before the present date and the T.T.C. is only now attempting to comply with the restrictions of the Act. Between September of 2001 and February of 2003, one must assume that Management (at the T.T.C.) were occupied with trying to obtain an exception from the Act,  and thus were permitted to delay compliance until after they had made their case, and ultimately failed to convince the Minister of Labour.

Bear in mind that the 16-hour day became a 12, then 10 and finally an 8-hour day because Unions fought for shorter working days to improve the quality of life of their members. There were objections to shorter days from both management and workers (who were convinced that they could not afford it). In time, both adapted to it at every stage. This process was not an overnight thing. Between the late 1800's, when the going rate for unskilled labour was "a dollar a day-and a place for my head" and the early 1950's, the length of the working day continued to shrink until the 8-hour day (and 40-hour week) was pretty much universal. And then something strange happened - the process stopped. Now, half a century later, with the ESA specifying an 8-hour work day and 11-hours continuous off-time between shifts, Union members need to be demanding a 7 or 6-hour work day and 12 hours of continuous off-time between shifts as a minimum. We must pursue this not only for the benefit of our members, but to ensure the survival of our Unions. If workers become falsely convinced that they can obtain the same benefits from legislation, without paying dues, that they derive from union membership , we will be hard pressed to maintain our membership. In any case, a worker ought to be able to exchange 1/4 of his or her life for the means to support the balance, and not 1/3 or 1/2 as they now do. The benefits of a shorter work day are widespread as well, since more workers will be needed to accomplish the same amount of work (thus lowering the unemployment rate and increasing the number of taxpayers while reducing the number of people requiring social assistance).

The simple answer to those who would say that we can't afford it, is that we can't afford not to do it. Fifty years is a long time to wait for the next step!