The Alberta Teachers’ Association

A government committee is studying the issue of "right-to-work" legislation in Alberta. The ATA opposes such legislation and made a submission to the committee, which is headed by former labor minister Elaine McCoy. The following feature contains the ATA' s submission and provides additional information on the subject of "right-to-work."

What is "right-to-work"?

The Dictionary of Canadian Law defines "right-to-work" as "the right of an employee to keep a job without being a union member" so that a "right-to-work" law effectively negates union security clauses in agreements.

According to Labour Law Terms: A Dictionary of Canadian Labour Law, "right-to-work" law is legislation which provides that employees cannot be required to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of obtaining or retaining employment.

Black's Law Dictionary, an American publication, says "right-to-work" laws provide in general that employees are not to be required to join a union as a condition of receiving or retaining a job.

These legal definitions are what "right-to-work" is all about even though the term is often defined in more emotional or less simple language in an attempt to make it sound more appealing or less threatening.

"Right-to-work" laws exist in 21 American states (there were 22 until Missouri repealed its "right-to-work" legislation in 1992). In four other states, legislation has been proposed—and defeated—on public ballots.

What's going on?

June 30, 1994

The Calgary Sun quotes Labor Minister Stockwell Day as saying: "We have been asked to do some research [on the issue of "right-to-work"] to see if there's any direct link with economic prosperity and we have not found a direct link." He continues "the province will not go ahead with 'right-to-work' legislation, for now."

March 7, 1995

Gary Friedel, MLA Peace River, proposes Motion 503 in the Alberta Legislature:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to initiate a study to examine the implementation of right-to-work legislation in the province of Alberta.

The motion is debated March 7 and March 14 for the maximum two hours allowed for such discussion. Speakers are Gary Friedel, Karen Leibovici (Edmonton-Meadowlark), Victor Doerksen (Red Deer-South), Grant Mitchell (Edmonton-McClung), Ron Hierath (Taber-Warner) and Duco Van Binsbergen (West Yellowhead). Following debate, a division of the house is called. The motion is carried by one vote—32 in favor and 31 against.

April 12, 1995

The labor minister announces the Alberta Economic Development Authority has agreed to conduct a study under a committee headed by former labor minister Elaine McCoy.

June 26, 1995

The committee invites submissions with a closing date of August 16, 1995. The committee plans to issue its report by November 30, 1995.

August 14, 1995

Alberta Teachers' Association makes "right-to-work" submission to committee.

Submission to Alberta Economic Development Authority Joint Review Committee, Right-to-Work Study

The following is The Alberta Teachers' Association's submission to the Alberta Economic Development Authority Joint Review Committee regarding "right-to-work" legislation. The submission was made August 14, 1995.

Economic considerations

Competitive "Advantage"

Those who argue "right-to-work" on a cost advantage basis must make the case that weakening unions through this legislation is required to give unionized Alberta employers the advantage of lower cost labor.

A 1995 study by KPMG Management Consulting (see "Labor and benefits are Canada's advantage) clearly establishes that Canadian firms already have a significant cost advantage over American firms and that the advantage is largely due to lower labor costs, costs which account for 14 to 31 percent of the total costs of production in the industries studied. The study examined the effect of seven key location-sensitive costs of production in each of seven industries in 15 cities in the United States and Canada.

The study's conclusions leave absolutely no doubt that those calling for a further advantage cannot justify their position on financial grounds. KPMG concluded that "labor costs in Canada are generally lower than those in the United States" and "the costs of employer-sponsored benefits in Canada are lower than in the United States, reflecting the existence of a public-sponsored health care system in Canada." (Employer-paid statutory benefits and taxes in Canada exceed those in the U.S., 11.2 percent versus 9.2 percent of payroll, a difference which is included in the net Canadian advantage quoted above.)

The study goes on to say the "combined impact of these factors creates a significant cost advantage for Canadian locations. The strongest factors underlying the net advantage for Canada are labor and benefits, which together account for about three-quarters of location-sensitive costs."

Given the evidence presented in the KPMG study, there is absolutely no justification for suggesting employers in Alberta need an additional "advantage" in the cost of labor. The committee must also recognize that among all Canada's provinces, Alberta already has the lowest level of organized labor relative to the work force.

Productivity, economic growth and education

The Joint Review Committee is charged with considering the impact of right-to-work legislation on productivity. Education is both an input and an output in the productive function. Productivity measurement analyzes the efficiency of a productive process by measuring the relationship between units of input and units of output in a production process and can be applied to education, both internally and externally, just as it is applied to other productive processes. The problem is that productivity measures in education are notoriously controversial due at least in part to the difficulties in measuring the inputs and the outputs. Educational outputs can be measured by standardized tests, departmental tests, school completion rates, and so on. These essentially measure quantities of education, and while valuable, are incomplete, failing to measure the quality of education. Typical educational inputs including the family, other pupils, the school and the teacher all interacting with the innate abilities of the pupil are equally difficult to measure. Consequently, educational productivity in general and the labor component of that productivity present a measurement problem that has been an enigma to economists.

Virtually all studies of human capital indicate there is a positive relationship between education and the productivity and economic growth of nations. All economists agree education contributes to an increase in the productivity of the labor component of the factors of production. Disagreement arises over the identification and measurement of the precise contribution of education relative to other factors. The relationship between education and economic growth has been repeatedly demonstrated in studies that show higher national income levels associated with higher levels of educational attainment. Recent U.S. department of commerce figures show that lower levels of personal income are associated with lower levels of educational attainment (measured by drop-out rates recorded by the U.S. Census) in right-to-work states.

Education must be seen as an investment as well as an expenditure. Cost-benefit studies generally indicate education is a profitable investment for the individual and for the society in which that individual resides. For example, a 1994 study prepared for the Association and conducted at the University of Alberta demonstrated that the return on investment to public education at the elementary and secondary level exceeded returns to the capital market. However, we note the investment levels in education as evidenced by expenditures per pupil in the public schools of right-to-work states is lower than those for non-right-to-work states and this situation would likely destroy the strong positive relationship between investment in public education and substantial return.

Right-to-work states in the U.S. show a high correlation between low education expenditures, low teacher salaries (representing about half of the difference in expenditures) and low output from their systems. For example, an American Federation of Teachers study done in 1993 found the amount spent on education in right-to-work states in the U.S. for 1992/93 was only 78 percent of that spent in non-right-to-work states. (See "Making comparisons," page xx.) The drop-out rate (one popular measure of educational outcomes) was 12.3 percent in right-to-work states as compared to 10.6 percent in non-right-to-work states (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990).

In summary, despite the sometimes tentative relationship between productivity factors in an economy and education, the overwhelming evidence to date indicates a strong positive relationship between higher levels of per pupil expenditure on public education, higher income levels and higher levels of educational attainment. Until such time as advocates of right-to-work legislation can demonstrate that their proposals will not jeopardize this condition, massive social experimentation of the kind they propose is simply not justified.

To whose "Advantage"?

In our view, right-to-work is primarily a social issue. As an economic issue it has more to do with wealth distribution than with wealth creation. It has little to do with creating an advantage for all Albertans and everything to do with creating a financial advantage for some. It is nothing but trickle-down economics trying to make the argument that the marketplace should dominate all social relationships. If Albertans are to reap an "Advantage" from a competitive economy they will need the tools to be competitive in that economy. Placing employee organizations in a position where they cannot compete on behalf of their members tilts the playing field away from ordinary citizens of this province.

Government deregulation

Increasingly governments are backing away from regulation of the marketplace. Recent, and proposed, changes to the Alberta Employment Standards Code are a case in point. Therefore, employees will have to rely on their own resources to establish and enforce their rights in employment. One tool available to employees is their union. It would run counter to deregulation initiatives already begun for government to further intervene and weaken unions just when they are needed most. Right-to-work legislation would be such an intervention with dilution of union effectiveness as its object.

Labor management relations

A great deal of effort has been expended over the past 5 to 10 years to address issues of labor management relations so as to improve the efficiency of the enterprise, the welfare of the workers and to enhance services for the general public. The Canadian Business Review recently published a special report on attempts at labor-management alliances. The report is symbolic of the recognition of the value of, and the need for, comprehensive change in those relationships. Alberta has seen several valuable initiatives of this sort in activities as different as construction and education.

It's ironic that just when unions and employers are beginning to see the benefits of increased cooperation through such techniques as mutual gains bargaining we are also discussing legislation designed to weaken one of the partners. We suggest it is also counterproductive and that the greater benefits are, in the long run, to be found in cooperation between the partners to their mutual benefit and to that of the society in which they work.

Additional considerations

Democracy

The process for forming a union is laid out in the certification process under the Labour Relations Code. The democratic nature of that process, as well as the hedges placed on inappropriate activities, are well known to the committee.

Those who advocate right-to-work claim an employee ought to be free to not join a union and to not pay for benefits gained, alleging in effect that democracy is defined only in terms of freedoms. It is much more appropriate to define it in terms of role o f law and in a balance between freedoms given and responsibilities incurred. Freedoms are not unfettered and rights imply obligations. Freedom to reap the benefits of a union without the obligation to pay for that representation is freedom without responsibility. The freedom to exclude oneself from democratically arrived at decisions to form a union, to accept or reject a collective agreement, to take or refuse to take job action, and so on, while benefiting from those decisions is contrary to the principles of democracy. Within the bounds and roles of one person one vote, the rights of minorities and other matters, citizens are expected to accept and abide by decisions democratically arrived at. Notwithstanding the accusations leveled at unions, their decisions are, in the vast majority of cases, arrived at democratically. Where there is evidence to the contrary those situations can, and should be, addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Special Case Situations

We note that the Joint Review Committee is cognizant of the particular circumstances that apply to certain organizations, one of which is The Alberta Teachers' Association.

The Teaching Profession Act requires teachers to . . . become a member of The Alberta Teachers' Association as a precondition of employment by a school board. The application section of the Teaching Profession Act reads as follows:

5(1) Subject to this section the employment of a teacher by a school board, other than as a superintendent, is conditional on the teacher being and continuing to be an active member of the Association.

In practice, this has meant that upon becoming employed by a school board, a teacher is automatically a member of the Association. In other words, employment precedes membership rather than following it. It appears to be a widespread misconception that the Association controls initial membership, for example, operates what is commonly known in union terms as a closed shop when in fact it is more accurate to identify it as a union shop.

The difference between automatic membership and compulsory membership (closed shop) is not inconsequential. As a result of Section 5, each time an employer hires a teacher the Association automatically assumes responsibility and liability for its obligations under the Discipline Bylaws of The Alberta Teachers' Association, Board of Reference provisions of the School Act and the Labour Relations Code. These are substantive and expensive obligations for the teachers of Alberta.

Critics have used this presumption of control over initial entry to suggest the Association is in a privileged position suggesting it can practice labor market regulation in a way that forces up the price of labor, one of the criticisms leveled at closed shop unions by the right-to-work advocates. It also speaks to accusations that have been made that the Association discriminates against new job seekers based on their attitude toward unions. The Association does not control which teachers get employed, employers do.

Exclusive Membership

Legislative provisions provide exclusive representation rights to certain organizations/occupations, one of which is The Alberta Teachers' Association. It may be that there will be those who express the sentiment that the Joint Review Committee ought to deal with the exclusivity of representation granted to organizations such as the Association. We do not covet the membership of any other union and believe the current exclusive nature of our membership allows us to focus on our core business; education an d the role of teachers in it. It is hard to see how the diffusion of teacher representation amongst various bodies and the expenditure of their dues on recruitment campaigns is an advantage to teachers, or to education in general. Presumably it was considerations such as these which led the legislature of the day to address the rights and responsibilities of each of these occupations in specific acts. The desirability and benefits of such structures are reflected in the legislation creating those organizations. If these matters were important enough to merit such attention at the outset then they are important enough to merit comprehensive consideration prior to any change.

Conclusion

The ATA is strongly opposed to so called right-to-work legislation on a wide variety of grounds. "Right-to-Work" is a slogan repeated by those who believe that individual workers and individual employers should be free to come to private arrangements with out the restraint of any other contract to impede them. Brought to its logical conclusion, the argument can then be made that individual citizens should be free to contract for what laws will be applicable to them and what laws each individual may choose to ignore. The right of an individual to democratically select a union and its leadership is not substantively different from the right of the citizen to select a political party or a candidate. Both are a form of social contract. Those who champion dissent from the first, cannot easily divorce themselves from the next step in the process. The demand of the radical right in the U.S. to free citizens from the decisions of democracy and the rule of law is the next step in the process.

 

Making comparisons

How does Alberta stack up against the States?

Per pupil expenditures in Canadian dollars in elementary and secondary schools—comparing American states to Alberta.

The U.S. figures have been converted to Canadian dollars by multiplying the American figure by 1.36. At the time of the calculation, the figure available from the Bank of Montreal was 1.3767 (August 23, 1995).

*Arkansas $4,492*
*Utah $4,666*
*Mississippi $4,851*
*Arizona $5,100*
*Tennessee $5,331*
*Alabama $5,625*
*Idaho $5,655*
Alberta $5,695
*Louisiana $5,817*
*South Carolina $5,837*
*South Dakota $5,877*
Oklahoma $5,934
*North Dakota $6,062*
Missouri $6,123
*Georgia $6,249*
Kentucky $6,255
*Nevada $6,361*
*North Carolina $6,368*
*Texas $6,656*
Canada (average) $6,784
Hawaii $6,868
Montana $6,924
Colorado $6,937
*Florida $7,052*
*Kansas $7,110*
*Iowa $7,143*
California $7,204
*Virginia $7,351*
Minnesota $7,442
Indiana $7,538
*Nebraska $7,601*
Ohio $7,556
Washington $7,78
Oregon $7,806
*Wyoming $7,925*
West Virginia $8,006
Maine $8,194
New Mexico $8,213
Maryland $8,499
Michigan $8,549
New Hampshire $8,692
Wisconsin $8,701
Illinois $8,843
Massachusetts $8,909
Delaware $8,964
Vermont $9,200
Rhode Island $9,311
Pennsylvania $9,574
Connecticut $10,261
New York $11,175
District of Columbia $12,021
New Jersey $12,425
Alaska $12,675

Sources:
U.S. Department of Education, NCES, Common Core of Data, February 1995.
Economic Service Notes, June 1995, Canadian Teachers' Federation, from Statistics Canada.

"Right-to-work" states

Who works where in Alberta

25 percent of Alberta's workers are unionized
13 percent work in the private sector
60 percent work in the public sector

—Statistics Canada, December 1994

Labor and benefits are Canada's advantage

A study, entitled "A Comparison of Business Costs in Canada and the United States," was conducted for the USA Trade and Investment Division of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade by KPMG Management Consulting. The study was released in March 1995.

The study includes eight Canadian cities, including Calgary, and seven cities in the U.S., two of which, Austin, Texas, and Raleigh, North Carolina, are in "right-to-work" states.

The study, which lists individual cost components, found labor costs and costs of employer-sponsored benefits in Canada are lower than in the U.S. As well, costs of employer-paid statutory employee benefits and taxes tend to be lower in Canada, reflecting the existence of our publicly-sponsored health care system.

In its summary, the report states that "for every industry, overall costs are lower in Canada than in the U.S."

The report concludes that "the strongest factors underlying the net advantage for Canada are labour and benefits, which together account for about three quarters of location-sensitive costs."