The Organization of Labor and Expansion of Unions

The Law of Work
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Number and Name
Instructor Name
Assignment Due Date
The Law of Work
Question 1.
Labor laws are fundamental rules that govern the interest of workers in society against private exploitation by employers. The government should pass the labor laws and expand welfare to accommodate more members. Labour laws have various benefits even to the most vulnerable members of society who work so hard to earn a living. The government has a bigger responsibility of protecting its citizen at all levels, being at places of work. For instance, the government has a role in passing legislation concerning the common laws governing minimum wages, laws governing employment contracts, common laws about work relationships, and low wages (Doorey, 2020).
In many industrialized nations, trade unions have a lengthy history. Since their inception, the benefits and drawbacks of organized labor representation have been hotly debated. Of course, it is commonly understood that union labor has helped various groups, both employees and businesses. Labor unions may provide important services that boost economic activity and social well-being. In truth, neither the government nor a laissez-faire economic system has the tools or incentives to ensure optimal output and welfare regarding occupational health and safety regulations. Unions can bridge this gap, boosting production and welfare. Collective bargaining, unionization, and strikes (industrial action) have been the main issues affecting the working relationship between employer and employee (Doorey, 2020).
The government has a responsibility to intervene if a similar issue arises to address the situation. The government does so with funding, taxes, regulation, high tariffs, and minimum (price controls). There may be private organizations operating in unregulated markets. This can lead to very high product prices and a lack of healthy market competition. All of this leads to a decline in consumer debt and a decline in social welfare. The government needs to intervene and address these social concerns by setting rules that govern behavior and market outcomes. In this way, the government can improve and increase the general public's well-being. The government will intervene to ensure that the market economy works to minimize the damage caused by natural economic disasters such as recession or inflation. The government will take action to promote broader economic equity in situations where there is inequality and inequality. Taxes and government spending on public schemes are examples of how government can redistribute financial resources (Kiem & Reshef, 2014).
Labor unions are a very significant body in modern society. Labor unions are some of the largest unions in the world. This means they have a voice that should be respected and regulated by the government. Effective labor regulation policies are necessary to safeguard the interest of workers and give them legal protection. The Canadian government should intervene and pass laws to expand union coverage to counteract stagnant or declining membership. Workers have complained but various frustrations and unnecessary decisions they are subjected to due to a lack of favorable policies that promote their voices in the union and safeguard their interests. Furthermore, as an organized group of workers, a union can gather information for a considerably larger number of workers in a much shorter period (Kiem & Reshef, 2014).
The close collaboration between the government and workers' unions is the most effective way of promoting workers' welfare. It is appropriate for the central government to safeguard the unions' interests and strengthen them by giving them more operating space through effective policies and by-laws. For instance, during the nineteenth century, the Industrial Revolution was marked by introduction of many groundbreaking new technologies. Health impacts are first unclear and are only revealed to individual employees in stages. Trade union density increases as more workers realize that joining a union means improved health and safety standards (Kiem & Reshef, 2014). Once specific criteria have been proven, they are incorporated into government policy, and the individual worker receives less advantage from union membership. The irony is that, from this perspective, the relevance of unions declines because they are performing well.
Question 2.
Employers’ opinions are always divided when it comes to workers’ unions. This is attributed to some historical accounts in the early 1930s. The amendment to the Criminal Code of 1939 made it illegal for an employer to refuse to hire a person who joins an employee association and for an employer to threaten or intimidate a worker into not joining an association. Conversely, prosecutions under that criminal clause were rarely prosecuted, and the enactment was more symbolic than substantive in practice, signaling a rising tolerance of collective worker actions. This law prohibits employer intimidation. In addition, the law gives the right to every employee to be a member of a trade union and to participate in any lawful activities as permitted by the law. However, the employer's conduct is restricted by two categories of the provision under general stature. The first category is aimed at addressing the fact that employers (typically) have a vested interest in seeing an organizing drive fail and the power to do so. In contrast, the second category is aimed at employees' right to form their union independent of their employer and to have that union represent them without interference from their boss (Doorey, 2020).
The employer is restricted from intimidating and coercing employees. The employers were forbidden from retaliating against workers who joined or supported employee associations by refusing to hire them or imposing terms in their contracts that sought to prevent the employee from exercising any of the legislation's protected rights (Doorey, 2020). The second category prevents the employer from interfering and dominating employees. The employers were barred from providing "financial or other support" to employee associations and dominating or interfering with their establishment or management (Doorey, 2020). According to section 96 of Canada’s labor code, Coercion Prohibition and intimidation threats and "Anti-Union Animus" take many forms, such as economic and physical threats. For instance, an employee commits a crime or a felony by giving the employer grounds to dismiss them if they threaten to punch a coworker in the nose unless he pays me $20. Still, I am not engaging in an unfair labor practice. Conversely, acting with anti-union animus refers to when an employer takes adverse action against an employee because the person is or is suspected of being a union supporter (Doorey, 2020).
The Anti-union animus describes the motive element of the unfair labor practice. The employer's behavior indeed has to be motivated by anti-union animus to be considered an unfair labor practice. The motive can either be physical threats or violence, which are less common in Canada. The employer can also show a motive for committing an economic threat, which is considered an unfair labor practice. The economic threat may include remarks or acts that lead employees to believe supporting collective bargaining is a good idea. As a result, employment security or working conditions are jeopardized. Threats, intimidation, and coercion are prohibited under collective bargaining legislation to police economic behavior threats (Doorey, 2020). However, employers are prohibited from penalizing, threatening, or firing employees for joining a union or supporting collective bargaining under the non-intimidation rules.
There are cases where the labor law has created a “reverse onus ."This happens unless the employer can come forth with a persuasive explanation for why its conduct was wholly free of anti-union animus; the company is presumed to have behaved unlawfully. There is also a scenario whereby even if there are other motivations for an employer's conduct, they are "tainted by anti-union animus." For instance, the motivation for the action was to avoid collective bargaining and unionization (Doorey, 2020).
The employer can choose not to interfere with restrictions in the two categories of intimation and prohibition. In this case, a non-interference provision applies, which performs two important functions. These functions include supporting the independent labor unions and preventing employer domination. The non-interference clauses protect employees' ability to choose an independent union to represent them. The employers who lobby employees to support a union they believe is more friendly than another are illegally intervening in the cho...