Are you committed to the full implementation of the recently passed Collective Bargaining Modernization Act?
Well, I would not use the word "committed," because that makes it sound like I have some sort of personal affinity for the provisions in the law, which I do not. But yes, I will implement the legislation as passed by the senate.
Personally, I support the idea of having single national or international unions for specific sectors of employment. For example, I look to the IAFF and see a strong union that can provide valuable services and professional development to its members specifically
because it brings fire fighters together from across Canada and the United States. It could not do what it does for the industry if fire fighters were represented by multiple disparate organizations.
On the other hand, I think industry-wide contracts and bargaining units are unrealistic and, in fact, will not be in the best interests of any party involved. Although some elected officials would like to pretend that all employers are the same, it's simply not the case, and no "employers' association" will be able to accurately represent the diverse conditions at different places of work. In that regard, the law does not, in my view, give employers a fair shake at negotiations. On the other side of the table, I have the feeling that a one-size-fits-all contract can never properly address the needs of specific workers at specific sites of employment. Part of what makes unions so important is that they are accessible and relevant to workers at a local level. Having local affiliates put their best representatives at the negotiating table ensures that the people fighting for workers' rights actually
know the workers and their specific needs... not the needs that the people at the top of the national organization
say are most important.
What's more, there's nothing in the legislation to clear up potential problems wherein one region may have one law on the books while another region has a completely contradictory one. What works in Kentucky may not work in California. Specifically for the IAFF, building codes are hugely important. The Imperial Dominion of the South uses the Consensus Codes and the rest use the National Building Code. What if something about these codes needed to make its way into a contract? We'd face some serious dilemmas. So local grassroots organizing matters a lot.
Plus, on another note, I would add that removing local negotiations eliminates the opportunity for some employers to offer competitive wages. If one company or one municipality or one school board is interested in attracting the best and the brightest in the field, they no longer have the authority to negotiate a better contract for their employees. Although I will admit that this occurrence is not common, the top-down approach introduced by the new legislation does come with its share of drawbacks. In many ways, I feel like the law attempts to solve an imaginary problem. And, frankly, I am disappointed that a number of senators did not verbalize these issues more forcefully.
I hope that answers your question.
