DOCSLIB.ORG

Grievance Processing Establishment of Rights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Grievance Processing Establishment of Rights TAB 1 GRIEVANCE PROCESSING ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHTS The Education Employment Relations Act (EERA), passed in 1975, provides for “Collective Bargaining” between school employees and their employer. Since July 1977, school employees have had the right to negotiate contracts which spelled out their “Terms and Conditions of Employment” and which can be enforced by the use of a grievance procedure that culminates in binding arbitration. Prior to 1950 No Voice 1950 – 1965 Right to address the Board of Trustees 1965 – 1975 Winton Act – The professional answer to collective bargaining provided for: . Proportional representation of organizations . CEC – Certificated Employees Council . Non-members unrepresented . “Meet and confer” . Written/verbal agreement were not required 1975 All school employees get the right to bargain 1975 – to present The Rodda Act provided for: . Defined units for representation . Exclusive representation for units . PERB to oversee implementation . Right to bargain binding arbitration . Binding arbitration permitted . Impasse procedures When the legislature passed the EERA, the relationship between Districts and employees changed. Employee rights are codified into a formal contract covering the wages, hours, and working conditions of the employees in a school district. Once negotiated, it is the Association’s responsibility to insure Management follows its bilateral agreements. That’s where the Grievance Procedure comes in. 1-1 NEGOTIATIONS/GRIEVANCES The negotiated contract is legally binding on the parties and can be enforced. In the absence of a binding arbitration clause, the contract can be enforced through the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) as an Unfair Labor Practice and/or the courts as a “Breach of Contract”. Every grievance filed helps define the contract language and impacts the subsequent bargaining process. DON’T JUDGE – DEFEND Along with the right to serve as the “Exclusive Representative” comes the duty and responsibility to represent all members of the bargaining unit in a fair and impartial manner. The “Duty of Fair Representation” (DFR) is the most important concept that an Association Representative must understand. The role of an employee organization is to defend and protect their members from management that has all the power simply because it is Management. Members deserve and pay dues to be protected, not tried by their organization. Members deserve an advocate. Self-assured, confident unit members build a healthy organization. When the Association takes on Management’s role, it does so at the peril of its members. Only unit members can file grievances; management cannot. Management has the inherent power to obligate. Unit members, however, thanks to collective bargaining, have the right to file a grievance, and if no settlement is reached, go to arbitration for relief. 1-2 MEMBER V. MEMBER If a member has a complaint against another member, it is not the Association’s business to resolve it unless it can be turned into a complaint against management. Even though a conscientious Representative may try to mediate the dispute informally, there is no grievance if management cannot be held accountable for its resolution. The Association is an employee organization representing each unit member. It is not a counseling service. 1-3 Duty of Fair Representation Pop Quiz Indicate A (Agree) or D (Disagree) with each of the following statements: 1. _____ The Association is required to process grievances for non-members. 2. _____ The Association has a duty to seek out the views of non-members regarding negotiations, and non-members have a right to vote for ratification of a contract. 3. _____ Once a site rep refers a contract issue to his/her president or CTA staff person, he/she has completed the Duty of Fair Representation. 4. _____ If an agency fee payer wants CTA staff or legal assistance on a contract issue/concern, the Association can say, “No, sorry.” 5. _____ It is OK for an Association to require all grievance to be processed by its Grievance Committee. 6. _____ The Association does not have a duty to investigate grievances which are clearly silly. 7. _____ Contractual timelines are normally extended if the site representative, grievant or grievance chairperson is out on leave. 8. _____ The grievant must be told the Association’s decision concerning his/her request to proceed to arbitration. 9. _____ Only lawyers may present an arbitration case. 10. _____ A grievant has the right to have his/her attorney present at an arbitration. 1-4 Duty of Fair Representation The EERA grants rights and powers to the exclusive representative AND also imposes some very real responsibilities. EERA Section 3544.9 states that “…the exclusive representative…shall fairly represent each and every employee in the appropriate unit”, which makes the organization legally accountable to its entire constituency. Summary of responsibilities regarding Duty of Fair Representation 1. Duty to represent/act of behalf of ALL bargaining unit members – not just Association members – without being arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. 2. Duty to negotiate on behalf of ALL bargaining unit members. Association must afford all bargaining unit members opportunity for input into contract proposals. The Association does not have to seek out non-bargaining unit member views/opinions. Non-members cannot vote for ratification of the contract. The Association should notify the employer that the two bargaining teams have reached agreement on a contract and that it will be subject to ratification by the Association. Association may allow non-members to vote. 3. Duty to be familiar with the contract. Check your Association governance documents and Contract as to who is responsible for filing and carrying through the grievance. The major impact of the Duty of Fair Representation will fall upon your Association’s Grievance Committee and grievance representatives. 4. Duty to advise bargaining unit members of their legal rights per the Contract. Must be a member to receive CTA legal counsel. 5. Duty to handle grievances for ALL bargaining unit members whether they are members of the Association or not. This does not mean that all grievances must be pursued through arbitration. Association must prove that decisions regarding proceedings to arbitration were based on the merits of the grievance, not on the grievant’s membership status. 1-5 6. Duty to investigate grievances. Investigate each claim thoroughly. Never refuse to process a grievance without investigating first. Never express an opinion regarding the merits of a grievant’s case until a full and complete investigation has been concluded. 7. Duty to satisfy contractual timelines. Missing timelines is the most common error yet is the easiest to control. Each Association representative should be informed of all relevant timelines. Establish a calendar and grievance management system. When timelines cannot be met, obtain a joint (both parties) waiver of the timelines. 8. Duty to notify Grievant immediately of union decisions regarding the grievance. 9. Duty to present a good arbitration case. Either CTA staff or legal counsel presents arbitrations. 10. Duty to allow a Grievant to have his/her attorney present at arbitration proceedings. The grievant’s attorney, if present, may not participate, but may counsel the grievant away from the proceedings. 1-6 TAB 2 YOUR RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED The Association is the exclusive representative for the bargaining unit members in your district and therefore, the only employee organization authorized to represent individual unit members in certain situations. What are those situations in which you may want or need representation? 1. An administrator calls a conference with you and you have reason to believe that you will be subjected to reprimand or disciplinary action. 2. You receive a “does not meet standards” overall evaluation. 3. You have a grievance. You are entitled to Association representation at every step of the grievance process, including the informal conference. 4. A meeting has been arranged to resolve a complaint about you – if the complainant is someone other than your designated evaluator, and an administrators is to be present. NOTE: An employee always has the right to halt any conference already in progress with any administrator, if the conference becomes disciplinary in nature, and may demand postponement for a reasonable amount of time to obtain representation. If you need to be represented, contact your Association representative or an Association grievance representative or call your CTA staff person. 1-7 THE WEINGARTEN RULE An employee has the right to have a union representative at a meeting with the employer if he or she has a reasonable expectation that discipline may result. This is a private sector rule that has been made applicable to Public School employees under the EERA. (See Redwood CCD v. PERB [1984] 159 Cal.App.3d617) THE COURT’S GUIDELINES A. The employee must request the representative. The right arises only in situations where the employee requests representation. The employee may and will forfeit this right if he/she goes ahead and meets with management without an Association Representative. B. There must be a reasonable belief that discipline will result from the investigatory meeting. Regular “run-of-the-mill” conversations with management such as review of job requirements or training will not be covered. However, the right to representation exists even in cases where no discipline does result from the interview. The right to representation is based on the reasonable belief of the employee, not anyone else in the situation. C. The employer is not required to interview the employee. The employer may decide not to interview the employee, if the employee requests the presence of a union steward, but may continue the investigation. The employer does not have to justify his/her refusal to allow union representation. The employer is free to carry on the inquiry without interviewing the employee, and thus leave to the employee the choice between having an interview unaccompanied by his representative, or having no interview and forgoing any benefits that may be derived form one.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rethinking Precarity and Capitalism: an Interview with Charlie Post
    Rethinking Precarity and Capitalism | 247 Rethinking Precarity and Capitalism: An Interview with Charlie Post Jordy Cummings1 (JC): The theme of this year’s Alternate Routes is the “paradox of low-wage, no-wage work”, and there is a great deal of analysis of an allegedly new historical subject, “the precariat”. What do you make of this “paradox”? Is capitalism really that different in 2015 than it was 20, 30, 40 years ago? Charlie Post2 (CP): Capitalism is certainly different today than it was during the so-called “Golden Age” of 1945-1975. During those years, “full-employment” – unemployment below the “frictional” rate of 3-4 percent, the dominance of full-time work with unemployment insurance, health care, pensions and the like (provided by the state, private employers, or some combination) – was the norm. This “full-employment” model also included some measure of job security – either legal or contractual protections from arbitrary dismissal, etc. The “Golden Age” was, in my opinion, exceptional in the history of capitalism. It was the product of a combination of a long period of rising profitability (1933-1966) and a militant labor movement across the industrialized world. Workers had threatened the foundations of capitalist rule (France and Spain in the mid-1930s, France and Italy immediately after World War II, France in 1968, Portugal 1974-1975) or severely disrupted capitalist accumulation in mass strike waves in the mid-1930s, immediate post-war years and again between 1965-1975. Capital was forced to make major concessions to labor. The “full-employment” model and the expansive welfare state were the most important gains, giving workers unprecedented security of employment.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring Equity in Right-To-Work Law
    Restoring Equity in Right-to-Work Law Catherine L. Fisk & Benjamin I. Sachs* Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 857 I. Reading Section 14(b) ................................................................................................. 860 II. A Genuine Right to Be Nonunion .......................................................................... 866 III. Removing the Obligation to Represent Nonmembers for Free ...................... 874 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 879 INTRODUCTION Under United States labor law, when a majority of employees in a bargaining unit choose union representation, all employees in the unit are then represented by the union and the union must represent all of the employees equally.1 Twenty-four states, however, have enacted laws granting such union-represented employees the right to refuse to pay the union for the services the union is legally obligated to provide.2 Although the name prompts strong objection from union supporters, these laws are known as “right-to-work” laws. Right-to-work laws have been around for decades,3 but they have come to national prominence again as another round of states has enacted the legislation. Michigan—a state with relatively high levels of union density4—enacted a right-to- work statute in 2012, and Indiana became a right-to-work state in 2010.5 As a * The authors are, respectively, Chancellor’s Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law, and Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry, Harvard Law School. Professor Fisk thanks Daniel Schieffer, and Professor Sachs thanks Ani Gevorkian for excellent research assistance. 1. National Labor Relations Act § 9, 29 U.S.C. § 159(a) (2012). 2. Right to Work Resources, NAT’L CONF. ST. LEGISLATURES, http://www.ncsl.org/issues -research/labor/right-to-work-laws-and-bills.aspx (last visited Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • Union Issues in the Solid Waste Industry
    archive LittlerThis article recently appeared in the National Solid Wastes Management Association, September 2005. Union Issues in the Solid Waste Industry by Ronald J. Holland and Philip Paturzo Summary sentatives of employees for collec- rates above the national average. In tive bargaining purposes, and the contrast, states in the Southeast and Union membership in America has bargaining process itself. It also Southwest tended to have far less been in a downward spiral for the addresses recent strikes in the in- union density. past 50 years. However, this does dustry and the ways employers can not mean that the private solid prepare in advance to reduce the Given the steady decline in union waste industry can rest easy. Be- impact of a strike. Finally, the pa- membership throughout the coun- cause the type of work performed per looks at management initiatives try, the private solid waste industry by industry employees cannot be that should be used to reduce the should not be concerned about new sent abroad to reduce labor costs possibility that employees will seek organizing efforts, right? Wrong. and the nature of the business is union representation. recession-resistant, unions recently The Teamsters boasts that it rep- have targeted solid waste compa- Background resents over 25,000 private solid nies. Specifically, the International waste industry workers.2 And it is Brotherhood of Teamsters, the larg- Labor unions have existed in not content to stop there. In 2004, est union player in the field, has America since the 1800s. By the Teamsters President James P. Hoffa publicly vowed to unionize private mid-1950s, at the height of the la- said: “It is the priority of the Team- solid waste companies nationwide bor movement, roughly 35 percent sters Union to bring justice to solid and has expended significant re- of the American workforce was waste workers throughout the coun- sources to achieve that goal.
    [Show full text]
  • 1.3 Recent Board & Department of Labor Activity on Union Organizing
    ABOUT THE AUTHORS Michael G. Pedhirney is a shareholder in the San Francisco office of Littler Mendelson, P.C., the largest U.S.-based law firm exclusively devoted to representing management in labor and employment law. Michael focuses on the representation of management in a broad range of labor and employment law matters, particularly collective bargaining and matters before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In addition to appearing in state and federal courts and before the NLRB, Michael also represents employers in collective bargaining and handles arbitrations and mediations. Karen A. Sundermier, in her current role as a Knowledge Management Counsel for Littler, helped design Littler LaborSmart™, an interactive, online tool that allows in-house legal and labor relations professionals to access all of their company’s collective bargaining agreements in a structured, searchable database. The tool allows companies to swiftly identify and compare language for contract administration, grievance, and negotiation purposes. Prior to turning her focus to offering strategic and innovative legal service solutions, Karen represented employers in a broad spectrum of employment and labor matters and assisted employers with representation elections and collective bargaining as a Littler associate and in- house employment counsel. She currently serves as an editor for Littler’s publications on labor relations topics. © 2018 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. i COVERAGE Scope of Discussion. This publication explains union election procedures and the NLRB’s role in overseeing elections. It also explores NLRB precedent on objectionable conduct by different parties that may result in election results being overturned. Also included is information concerning actions employers are permitted to take and are prohibited from taking in advance of and in response to union organizing drives.
    [Show full text]
  • Collective Bargaining Agreement
    COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNITED GOVERNMENT SECURITY OFFICERS OF AMERICA, INTERNATIONAL UNION AND UNITED GOVERNMENT SECURITY OFFICERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 161 AND AKAL SECURITY, INCORPORATED July 1,2011 through September 30, 2014 UGSOA IU, UGSOA Local 161 with Akal, 07.01.2011-09.30.2014 MISSION STATEMENT COURT SECURITY OFFICER • Ensure the safety of US Federal Courts, Protected Government facilities and their employees against unauthorized, illegal and potentially life-threatening activities. • Cadres of qualified and highly skilled officers perform this mission. CSO Goal & Vision Goal To conduct ourselves in a manner as to bring credit upon the Court Security Officer and Special Security Officer program and the United States Marshal Service at all times. Vision To be alert to all situations and events that take place and take necessary measures to prevent dangerous situations from happening. UGSOA IU, UGSOA Local 161 with Akal, 07.0l.2011-09.30.2014 2 ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS SECTION 1.1 PARTIES This agreement is entered into by and between Akal Security, Incorporated a New Mexico corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "Company" or "Employer", United Government Security Officers of America, International Union (UGSOA, IV), and UGSOA Local 161 (hereinafter referred to as the Union). The Company recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative, of the bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining as defined in the National Labor Relations Act. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties, their successor's and assigns. In the event of the sale or transfer of the business of the employer, or any part thereof, the purchaser or transferee shall be bound by this agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013: 880 ULP Ex Dir Decision on Merits ILA 1694 1 V DSPC Work
    STATE of DELAWARE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, ) LOCAL 1694-1, AFL-CIO, ) ) Charging Party, ) ULP 12-11-880 ) v. ) Decision on the Merits ) DIAMOND STATE PORT CORPORATION, ) ) Respondent. ) Appearances Bernard N. Katz, Esq., Meranze, Katz, Gaudioso & Newlin, P.C. for ILA Local 1694-1 Scott A. Holt, Esq, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, for Diamond State Port Corporation BACKGROUND The State of Delaware is a public employer within the meaning of 19 Del. C. §1302(p) of the Public Employment Relations Act, 19 Del.C. Chapter 13 (“PERA”). Diamond State Port Corporation (DSPC) is an agency of the State. DSPC operates the Port of Wilmington which is located in Wilmington, Delaware. The International Longshoremen’s Association, Local 1694-1, (“ILA”) is an employee representative within the meaning of 19 Del.C. §1302(i). By and through its affiliated Local 1694-1, the ILA is the exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit of DSPC employees within the meaning of 19 Del.C. §1302(j). ILA Local 1694-1 and DSPC are parties to a current collective bargaining agreement 5805 which has a term of October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2013. On or about November 16, 2012, the ILA filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) alleging conduct by the DSPC in violation of §1307(a)(1), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7).1 Specifically, the Charge alleges “sometime in 2010 or early 2011, the employer arranged to have certain bargaining unit work performed by a private contractor on the premises of Diamond State Port Corporation which was bargaining unit work.” Charge ¶4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Grievance Procedure
    The Path to Effective Handling of Grievances - Procedure and Practice Austin A. Gamey Gamey and Gamey Group Consultants in Conflict Resolution andLabour Relations P.O. Box CE 11787, Tema-Ghana Tel/fax 022-303432 Mobile: 0244-314193/020-8225187 Websites:www.gameyandgamey.com/www.adrdaily.com Email: [email protected] 1 Table of Contents FOREWORD ...........................................................................................................................4 Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) .....................................................................................................4 Why the Law?........................................................................................................................4 Paradigm Shift .......................................................................................................................5 Grievance Handling................................................................................................................5 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................7 Definition of “Grievance” .......................................................................................................7 Time Limits ........................................................................................................................8 Benefits of a Grievance Process..............................................................................................9 Types of Grievances ..............................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Featherbedding”: Under the Nlra and Under Your Collective Bargaining Agreement
    ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW COUNCIL 28TH ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION LABOR LAW SYMPOSIUM WASHINGTON, D.C. APRIL 19-20, 2012 WHAT IS “FEATHERBEDDING”: UNDER THE NLRA AND UNDER YOUR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT Presented By: WILLIAM BEVAN III REED SMITH LLP 225 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 (412) 288-3184 Fax: (412) 288-3063 Website: www.reedsmith.com Email: [email protected] WHAT IS “FEATHERBEDDING”: UNDER THE NLRA AND UNDER YOUR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT William Bevan III* What is “featherbedding.” The popular notion is that featherbedding represents a situation where an employer pays employees for work it does not want or need. Most dictionary definitions confirm this, even specialized ones.1 Nevertheless, as this paper will show, the legal definition under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “Act”) is narrower, and no pun intended, more exacting than commonly held perceptions of what constitutes featherbedding. Featherbedding as regulated under Section 8(b)(6)2 of the Act is limited to very specific situations that comport with the language of the statute but not with what the public perceives should be condemned as featherbedding. It is, perhaps, only in the arbitration world where more common notions of what constitutes featherbedding are likely to prevail. This paper will explore the legislative history of * Partner, Reed Smith LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of Reed Smith LLP or the Associated General Contractors of America. 1 Featherbedding – (The action of) making comfortable by favourable, esp. economic or financial, treatment; the state of being so treated; spec.
    [Show full text]
  • Employer Initiated Grievance in the Collective Bargaining Contract: a Friendly View Herb Matthews
    Santa Clara Law Review Volume 7 | Number 1 Article 3 1-1-1966 Employer Initiated Grievance in the Collective Bargaining Contract: A Friendly View Herb Matthews Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Herb Matthews, Employer Initiated Grievance in the Collective Bargaining Contract: A Friendly View, 7 Santa Clara Lawyer 26 (1966). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol7/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EMPLOYER INITIATED GRIEVANCE IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACT: A FRIENDLY VIEW Herb Matthews* INTRODUCTION From the employer's viewpoint, collective bargaining is all too often a one way street favoring the union. Most clauses in the col- lective bargaining contract are viewed as providing burdens for the employer, not benefits: The employer shall pay specified rates; the employer shall not transfer employees between shifts, etc. The tradi- tional exceptions to this general rule are the so called management's rights clause and the no-strike clause. The management's rights clause is usually a broadly worded paragraph which attempts to spell out what the company can do in running its business.' But even this particular exception to the general rule as to burdens fails to appear in a great many collective bargaining contracts-often by design.' * A.B., 1959, University of Pittsburgh; LL.B., 1962, Boalt Hall, University of California; Member, Labor Law Committee, American Bar Association; Member, Labor Law Committee, Bar Association of San Francisco; Staff Counsel, California Metal Trades Association; private practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Union Security Agreements in Public Employment Patricia N
    Cornell Law Review Volume 60 Article 2 Issue 2 January 1975 Union Security Agreements in Public Employment Patricia N. Blair Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Patricia N. Blair, Union Security Agreements in Public Employment, 60 Cornell L. Rev. 183 (1975) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol60/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNION SECURITY AGREEMENTS IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT Patricia N. Blairt The number of employees on the public payroll has more than doubled in the past two decades.' Public employee union member- ship has exhibited a commensurate growth record. 2 The recogni- tion by federal and state governments of the right of public employees to bargain collectively has increased correspondingly. Although such uniform national legislation as the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)3 and the Railway Labor Act of 1926 (RLA),4 which guarantee the right to bargain collectively in the private sector, has no counterpart in the area of public employ- ment, both the federal government and a substantial majority of the states have acted to secure collective bargaining rights for their respective public employees. At the federal level, Executive Order Number 11,4915 and the Postal Reorganization Act of 19706 guarantee United States employees7 the right to bargain collectively.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FIGHT AGAINST PLATFORM CAPITALISM JAMIE WOODCOCK Uwestminsterpress.Co.Uk (2019) and the Gig Economy (2019), Marx at the Arcade
    THE FIGHT AGAINST PLATFORM CAPITALISM PLATFORM AGAINST FIGHT THE THE FIGHT AGAINST PLATFORM CAPITALISM CDSMS o far, platform work has been an important laboratory for capital. Management techniques, like the use of algorithms, are being tested Swith a view to exporting across the global economy and it is argued that automation is undermining workers’ agency. Although the contractual trick of self-employment has allowed platforms to grow quickly and keep JAMIE WOODCOCK their costs down, yet it has also been the case also that workers have also found they can strike without following the existing regulations. This book develops a critique of platforms and platform capitalism from the perspective of workers and contributes to the ongoing debates about the future of work and worker organising. It presents an alternative portrait THE FIGHT AGAINST returning to a focus on workers’ experience, focusing on solidarity, drawing out a global picture of new forms of agency. In particular, the book focuses on three dynamics that are driving struggles in the platform economy: PLATFORM CAPITALISM the increasing connections between workers who are no longer isolated; the lack of communication and negotiation from platforms, leading to escalating worker action around shared issues; and the internationalisation of platforms, which has laid the basis for new transnational solidarity. An Inquiry into the Global Focusing on transport and courier workers, online workers and freelancers, author Jamie Woodcock concludes by considering how Struggles of the Gig Economy workers build power in different situations. Rather than undermining worker agency, platforms have instead provided the technical basis for the emergence of new global struggles against capitalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Women and Public Sector Precarity Causes, Conditions and Consequences
    WOMEN AND PUBLIC SECTOR PRECARITY CAUSES, CONDITIONS AND CONSEQUENCES BY LEAH LEVAC AND YURIKO COWPER-SMITH 240 Catherine Street 613-422-2188 Suite 201 [email protected] Ottawa ON K1N 6N5 cps-esp.ca 2 Women and Public Sector Precarity Leah Levac and Yuriko Cowper-Smith Acknowledgements CRIAW acknowledges its presence and work on Indigenous Territories. We respectfully recognize the legacy of colonization upon Indigenous Peoples. The contributors to this report include: Major contributions from Irene Jansen, Senior Equality Officer, CUPE. Reviewers: Tammy Findlay and Andrée Coté French translation: François Couture for CUPE Review of French translation: Ann Denis, Selma Kouidri Layout and editing: Jackie Neapole Design: Jessica Rousseau (Jessica Rousseau Design) Project Support: Janine Bertolo This paper is part of the Changing Public Services: Women and Intersectional Analysis project, led by the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW-ICREF). The CPS project is generously funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), and through donations from the project’s union partners, including PSAC, CUPE, CUPW, CAUT, and CLC. This paper was produced with funding from CUPE, PSAC, CLC, and Mitacs Published April 25, 2016 Women and Public Sector Precarity 3 Leah Levac and Yuriko Cowper-Smith Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 4 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]