UPDATE: Jail Threat for 'Voluntary' Overtime Explained

[@_Pyroon_]

I find it silly that something is considered a strike when it's completely optional. They're not refusing to work, they're refusing to work beyond their contract hours in a concerted effort.

[@itsjusrex]

This is what’s referred to as a Wobble... because it is a Labor agreement. I promise there is a no strike clause... but, a wobble is legal

[@rickjason215]

Steve appears to be a management, ownership supporter.

[@NoName-ik2du]

@@rickjason215 Or...he's lawyer who's just giving an unbiased legal interpretation of a scenario that he has no stake in or opinion on.

[@Cheepchipsable]

It's about the organised nature of the action, which seems to be to gain a benefit. More like a work to rule or go-slow, which would probably qualify as strike action.

[@AzraelThanatos]

@@Cheepchipsable To me, it feels more like the kind of thing where the workers are deciding that the compensation for voluntary extra work isn't worth their time, so they aren't doing it and don't have to. It also seems a lot like this kind of thing is a setup where someone stating that they don't think it's worth the time/effort for the pay there so aren't doing it outloud and get in trouble for it

[@gackaret]

Note though, that it wasn't an organized work stoppage but an organized overtime stoppage. I see nothing in the story so far indicating the workers were not showing up for their scheduled shifts and thus would have been in compliance with the labor agreement. Voluntary aint voluntary unless it is actually voluntary, regardless if they wish to form an artificial overtime cartel or not. Further, if the labor agreement stipulates that some minimum percentage of workers must accept the "voluntary" overtime, then please, someone clarify that. Otherwise, this is just reinvented slavery.

[@seanken336]

It sounds like the union works can still decline overtime but they can't collude to all decline overtime. If they all come to the same conclusion individually they don't want to work overtime then the contract would not be in violation

[@kirm8137]

You vill own notink, UNT you vill be happy. And don't forget: "Eat ze bugs".😀

[@JKiler1]

The sticking points appear to be A) this is a coordinated effort, and B) it's designed to force the company back to the negotiating table even though there is a legal contract in place.

[@futurethinking]

@@seanken336 stop bootlicking

[@rad7965]

Welcome to Canada.

[@Thanatosweilder]

Ah. mandatory voluntary overtime. I remember this from basic training. "You, you, and you volunteer."

[@BLAZE13011]

Volen-told more like it, the good old days lol

[@jonathanmarois9009]

"Red shirts"...

[@gorillaau]

We need three volunteers, please step forward. Everyone but a half dozen, give or take, steps backwards.

[@jerryalan3302]

"who has a drivers license?"

[@TimeSurfer206]

I got sent to Basic with the advice from my Father to "Never volunteer for anything." One day the Drill Sergeant asks, "OK, WHO HERE KNOWS HOW TO USE PICKS, SHOVELS, AND WHEELBARROWS?" My subconscious mind, always a better judge of Survival Situations than me, shot my hand into the air before I knew what it was doing. The Drill Sergeant then said, "Very well, Private Time Surfer, since you already know how, you get to be the First Sergeant's Orderly. Go make his coffee. "And now, the rest of us get to learn how to use picks, shovels, and wheelbarrows.

[@knghtbrd]

This changes nothing for me-in fact I assumed it was a union-related overtime stoppage. We're already talking about 10 hour shifts. Overtime in those circumstances when the work is dangerous and exhausting is almost unethical on its face. And you did have the in this case the big bad oil company go whine to the government and threaten employees with arrest and jail if they refused to perform "voluntary" overtime. If "voluntary" work isn't "voluntary", then by definition it is forced labor. And forced labor under threat is grounds is supposed to be illegal.

[@realtijuana5998]

@@thompson6886 Breach of contract is not supposed to have criminal penalties, only civil ones.

[@dwaynepenner2788]

@@realtijuana5998 Breach of a court order gets you contempt. Not obey a court order in a civil matter is no longer JUST a civil infraction.

[@dwaynepenner2788]

If work safety was the issue, the work can be refused a complaint initiated and an investigation MUST be commenced according to Alberta law. There was no complaint, at least that was made public, was made. Further an agreement that bargains away worker safety is not a legal agreement in Alberta.

[@victorfinberg8595]

@Just Looking You are talking "in principle". maybe go to Canada and study the actual conditions of course, technically, everything you have posted is correct. And that's why people engage in "illegal" activity.

[@dicktiionary]

the contract wasn't with big oil It was with the scaffolding sub. And I'm sure the collective agreement was plenty attractive enough to the workers, till they got greedy and jealous. It never was a safety issue.

[@owenclark7210]

I've worked for an Oilfield service/supply company here in Alberta, and we had done insulating jobs for Suncor. Suncor is a horrible company to do work for, as they like to screw over the contractors as much as possible. My boss (company owner) actually cancelled the contract after 3 months because Suncor owed a lot of money that they weren't paying. Sounds to me like Suncor is pulling another one of their 'let's screw over the little guys' tactics by telling them there is 'voluntary' overtime, but if no one wants to 'voluntarily' do it, they will get the labor board to force the workers to do it, essentially making it mandatory overtime.

[@Elladril]

Yeah I think you should listen to the video again. The illegal part isn’t that they don’t want the overtime. The illegal part is that they conspired to work together and all refuse in order to try to strong arm the company. The labor board found the fact that no one was accepting overtime to be a large statistical departure from how many people normally accept it.

[@AzraelThanatos]

@@Elladril The issue is that conspired in that sense can still mean a lot of things, several people stating that the overtime wasn't worth it to them can easily be considered it if several people come to the same conclusion and refuse. Or advising a friend that is debating it with the comment of ask if it's worth it to you.

[@dunzerkug]

Wouldn't be shocked if Suncor spread the idea themselves to get enough fuel to scare workers into it.

[@futurethinking]

​@@Elladril And so? That still doesn't make it illegal. Alberta is red wing country and the labor board is filled with conservative types and the labor boards do not adhere to standard of justice system so they make up shit like this one. Exactly like they did in US under Reagan and Bush. Labor board even in case of work stoppage cannot threaten jail as they like to call it always, this is a civil matter, collaborating and forming union is a fundamental freedom guaranteed by constitution. Workers are free to collaborate, all labor board can do is to void contract if union breaks it which in this case they did not. They used one of the few tools that they have to apply pressure to the company and conservative assholes in government just had to come to the rescue.

[@Elladril]

@@futurethinkingWomp womp. Unions shouldn't even be legal. It's no different from a cartel, except among workers rather than businesses.

[@tedsaylor6016]

How the board could consider "voluntary" refusal of overtime (collective or not) to be akin to a full-on strike is beyond me. Is the "normal" contract work week 40 hours, or is it not? Did the board qualify how many "voluntary" hours of overtime were now (in effect) mandatory? Would that determination violate other 40hour work week standards? What if someone on this overtime was hurt due to exhaustion? I think the local labor board has no idea of the implications of their ruling.

[@rafezetter8003]

OFC they don't because they don't actually WORK a 40 hour week in a job that can be physically demanding, they get to sit on thier asses all day with attendants getting them tea or coffee. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent that I'm certain companies will try to expolit - as if the labour laws in the USA were exploitable enough...

[@MoireFly]

The way i read it employees are still entirely free not to do overtime, and if I were them, it's what I would do. They're simply not allowed to do it collectively -but the horse had already fled the barn, and no further coordination is required. If the workers shut up about it, and simply individually choose to skip overtime... And (almost) all choose that... The employer is still going to come up short here.

[@alphaomegaalines5935]

ot only that, but if that is the case then the union is breaching the contract as a third partyy, which many states have laws about

[@nfaulkner5849]

It should not be considered a work stoppage, They were completing the specified contract hours. They simply refused "voluntary overtime" hours. The contract does not seem to address involuntary overtime. To me it is looks like Canada still believes in slavery.

[@MoireFly]

@@alphaomegaalines5935 Yep, and by the sound of it a valid contract too. Because even though contract law matters - not all contracts are legal, so merely because the union might be "breaking" it doesn't automatically mean that's actually illegal or remedies enforceable. So the labor boards opinion on the matter is interesting here, at least assuming they're competent and unbiased. I'm going to guess that they wouldn't have made this finding if that contract were illegal or unenforceable. It is a little remarkable that this contract both exists and is seemingly enforceable; but hey, it's not exactly news that laws tend to be better at protecting vested interests than labor.

[@kevinfloyd808]

How can refusing to work. Much less refusing to work more hours than the contract call for, be criminal? Assuming slavery is still illegal in Canada, how can anyone be threatened with jail for not working? Fired..sure..but jailed? Labour contract is enforceable in the sense that violating it can lead to termination. But no labour contract should ever carry criminal penalties. Work for me or go to jail is legally and literally the same as work for me or die ( if they can arrest you for something they can shoot you for refusing to comply with the officer arresting) that is the definition of being a slave..on the workers side. Who when given a memo saying "if you disobey you boss we will jail you" doesn't immediately resign. If like to see any lawyer in US or Canada try and convince any higher court that workers should be jailed for quitting a job...if any court did agree to that they should be forced to call it what it is, a repeal of the emancipation proclamation, and the 13th and 14th ammendments in the US.

[@jeromemuller962]

It's Canda, not USA, the 13 and 14 amendments are in the USA Constitution, where they do not exists in Canada.

[@markjackson1989]

@@jeromemuller962 I am confident you didn't even read the original comment. They specifically mention Canada.

[@kevinfloyd808]

I said us or canada...I used us rules as a reference because I'm familiar..I would assume Canada also has a fairly strong prohibition on slavery in its primary laws..I am simply not familiar with the terminology there.

[@MickeyMishra]

they've already went full communism I suppose?

[@yunofun]

It isn't the refusing to work overtime that is at issue. It is the coordinated refusal in an effort to change the contract. That action constitutes an illegal strike.

[@dand3953]

All this hinges on one word ... VOLUNTARY. Mandating "voluntary" compliance is oxymoronic, and this perspective is wholly unaffected by whether any volunteers are acting individually or collectively. In the Union's contract, how are the terms of "voluntary" overtime established? Everybody not wanting to volunteer means that a particular, or even non-substantial, hardship imposed by the employer's request for volunteers seemingly would include a perception of inequitable compensation for services provided, thus no volunteers. Nobody wanting to volunteer could simply mean that everybody being asked to volunteer perceives an injustice of equitable compensation, resulting in everybody's refusal to volunteer. It's the employer corporation itself that has caused this united refusal, by a minority workforce among the larger group of workers to volunteer, by offering inequitable compensation to particular elements of that entire collective workforce. The workers themselves, both individually, collectively, and selectively, should not be punished for refusing to be inequitably exploited. Additionally, the workers were not stopping, or even just slowing down their "normal" work schedule, they simply continued to normally accomplished their duties. What they had done was to simply refuse to VOLUNTARILY work overtime for whatever they deemed as unjust compensation/working conditions. Working overtime does appreciably involve more stressful working conditions. As it seems, the involved union contract does not have any terminology that allows the employer to oxymoronically MANDATE any inequitably compensated circumstance of "voluntary" overtime labor, which crosses at least a little bit over the line into the realm of involuntary servitude. This particular Labor Relations Board seems to be stacked with a more corporately sponsored membership that is predisposed to adjudicate things as an employer would prefer, regardless of any constitutional issues.

[@mikem3695]

The overtime is voluntary in that if enough workers accept to work it then nobody will be forced to. If the contract specifies what happens if not enough accept voluntary overtime then that seems reasonable. An organized effort to discourage accepting voluntary overtime in order to change terms of the contract and then refusing to honor the terms set forth for not enough volunteers qualifies as a work stoppage.

[@zzav2345]

@@mikem3695 ya, sounds like mandatory overtime of an understaffed company, if "enough people" are working regular hours you don't need "volentory overtime" and the counter is individually say "i just did not feel like working over time, show me in the contract i HAVE to work voluntary overtime." and if there is, well, we all can quit and you can find someone else ....

[@firefightingguy9427]

Sounds like they need to increase the pay to incentivize hiring more workers so overtime is not needed

[@mikem3695]

@@zzav2345 Sounds like you never worked in a production environment that needed overtime. You're told at hiring that OT will be expected and most people want it.

[@zzav2345]

@@mikem3695 a production environment never "needs overtime" unless the business model is flawed, or the board are greedy sacks of what they push ..... just because the corporate culture has pushed this as "the norm" does not mean it is necessary for a business to flourish, nor should be accepted by people being abused .....

[@sharpfang]

About "being reasonable": if 4 out of 12 employees call in sick on monday, informing of a week-long leave in a unit that is already short-staffed, the burden on, say, 2 of the remaining 8 may be overwhelming and they'll call in sick the next day. Now the remaining 6 are completely overwhelmed, and unable to meet the demand, and call in sick due to an absolutely genuine nervous break-down. And you have a sick-out without any organized effort, as a natural effect of management's lack of foresight in providing sufficient work force. Illegal?

[@ttww1590]

As long as you don't make demands first, or live in a small camp with minimal privacy.

[@theguywhowouldnt7224]

Yes exactly. Greedy management keeps cutting workers until it is unbearable.

[@hatjodelka]

Some years ago I booked annual leave, well in advance, which was approved by management. In the meantime there was a one day 'sick out' which coincided with my leave. On my return I had a written warning and was informed my pay would also be docked. When I complained to management they did not budge, on the grounds that I was clearly in cahoots with other employees. I wasn't. The dispute started when I was hundreds of miles away enjoying a well-earned holiday that was long overdue. I found a better job with better managers as well as better pay and conditions. I quickly realised I'd been working for a very badly run organisation that didn't value its employees. My only regret was how hard I'd worked for them for over the years.

[@georgevue8175]

I worked in technology for the state of Massachusetts for 20 years. I came from Fidelity Investments where 60 hour weeks were the norm & we had to perform the actual work. In my government job 35 hours/week was the max & that included a 1 to 2 hour/day lunch, plenty of time for the gym, shopping, haircut, etc.. In government most of our time was spent in meetings discussing which politically connected contractor/agency to hire for the next project. As soon as I turned 57 I put in for my pension because I was bored to death. The insane thing is my pension pays more than most make. I only took the job because Fidelity Investments has replaced 95% of it's technology workers with cheap & compliant H1-B VISA's mostly from India.

[@johnk7104]

Had a coworker call in DEAD. We all laughed. Business owener did not.

[@mochaandmuses]

I just want to say I appreciate how you dig in and re-explain where people messed it up. You do amazing bringing the complexity of law into something easy to understand for laymen. :)

[@scottmcshannon6821]

even after the explanation the jail threat is just silly.

[@Paul-sj5db]

It often doesn't make the law any less stupid.

[@woodysdrums8083]

Except, the company gave 150.00 per day to ALL other employees working overtime except them.

[@bondobilly9369]

They might be not under contract unlike the scaffolding guys

[@Sidecutter]

@@bondobilly9369 Nothing is stopping the company from offering it to those workers at well. Addendums are a simple thing for a corp to do and the workers to agree to.

[@Max_R_MaMint]

He just ignores this like its inconsequential, when its literally the reason.

[@bondobilly9369]

@@Max_R_MaMint they (scaffolding crew) have a union, we don't know about the other workers and if they have or don't have a union. The company ONLY has to go by the contract. Would it be a nice gesture? Yep. Do they have too? Nope.

[@evangoshert5817]

Then the contract needs to state when the work needs done or how many man hours per day or week needs to be.

[@AiluropodaPanda]

On an oil mine related note, something that I found amusing when I first learnt about it was a copper well. Instead of digging out the rock, the drill down to it like they would for oil, but they actually drill a formation of holes. Then they pour an acid down one hole and as it trickles through the rock, it picks up copper along the way. Then they pump the copper solution out the other holes. That was one of the coolest things I learnt about that month.

[@dwaynepenner2788]

That is but one way of copper mining. It is called solution mining and is common in potash as well. It is not the most economical way to mine every formation.

[@tonycamp4514]

I'm curious how such an order is enforced going forward. If no takes the overtime this weekend, what do they do? If some people do take it, but it's not enough people, how does that work? If the entire workforce gets jailed isn't the company twice as screwed?

[@LoveClassicMusic0205]

I was thinking the same thing. What if only one person takes the overtime? Is that considered compliant with the ruling?

[@zacker150]

The ALB found that this was a collective action. I imagine that any enforcement would be directed at the union. They could do anything from fines to throwing the union steward in jail.

[@ronblack7870]

@@zacker150 dissolve the union . fine the union and take it from the pension fund.

[@jdmather5755]

Years ago I worked under a similar contract. If no volunteer for the overtime - then lowest seniority worker drafted to the overtime. Penalty was dismissal. Turns out to be very persuasive.

[@Papaws_Garage]

@@ronblack7870 I take it you have no idea how bad and unsafe some work conditions could be without a union. Not saying all unions are great but the majority help to ensure fair and safe working conditions for the employees along with getting better health and other benefits. And why would you advocate taking from pensions that people have worked hard to get ?

[@medarby2]

I was put in a similar position. In our union contract, there was a clause that stated that it was required to work overtime if it was necessary. This was an extremely labor intense job. When I would try to work more than 8 hours, I started to experience back pain. I went to my doctor for an examination of my back. I was told that I had degenerative disk disease, I was only 44 years old. My doctor wrote a note to give the Union and the Company that said that I was partially disabled, and could only work 8 hours in a 24-hour period. the company fired me then rehired me the next day after speaking with their attorney. I never worked more than 8 hours in a 24-hour period after that.

[@Thoringer]

Funny thing: If overtime is regular, the company is understaffed. Did the court not see that point? Strange! Ask a judge to do overtime, see how that pans out!

[@Omniseed]

Ask a judge to do overtime *in a manual labor position* for a month or two and see what their employment-related rulings look like afterwards. It would truly revolutionize and improve our legal system if the arbiters were made to undergo a rigorous training period that included exposure to the real-world situations that they will have authority over in the future.

[@feetincheseighths]

No one wants to be fully staffed. We all know that.

[@johnassal5838]

But why would they be even 80% staffed if that would require a base rate for all closer to that overtime they only now pay 20% of the time? Supply and demand is unavoidable unless it cuts into those profits funneled straight to the top. Then supply and demand becomes communism or something. Years ago Nike moved production to Brazil i think. Union activists were told of a stash of company docs dumped in a landfill not even shredded. They revealed that the way the company structured things they were saving way over 50% on every single thing and of course labor was over 90% cheaper, yet the product still cost consumers the same. Even the retail outlets were paying just as much as they always had for stock. *Even* (or especially) when it was an actual Nike outlet. 🤔 See they would save huge amounts of money fueling the destruction of the rainforest encouraging those slash and burn farms and ranches supplying leather, rubber and glue at extremely low cost to them, then using wholely owned subsidiaries as intermediaries would charge themselves progressively more as supplies and products moved up the chain until they could "factually" state that those Nike stores were only operating at a few percent profit because look at the books, there's nO MoNeY LeFt to pay more to the retail employees. But of course it's not just the retail help, they also weren't paying much if any US tax AND were doing anything but passing on any savings to the US consumers. So they were charging the same in the US while paying something less than 10% in labor and still cooking the books so they'd screw the retail workers after ripping all those manufacturing jobs out of the country. Must be poor workers or something inexplicable hurting the middle class. It sure is a mystery. Smh.

[@johnclements6614]

In construction just like any work outside you are weather dependent. When it gets below freezing not much scaffolding gets done. When its warm, but not too warm, the weather is not restricting the work. There is also sunlight late into the evening and early morning in the summer, not sure how far north the tar sands are but maybe they could work t0 10pm and start at 4am without using lights. In the winter as well as being cold the sun will not be up until 8am and it will be too dark to work without lights at 4pm. There will be rules about the number of hours a day and week they can work so they will not be working sun up to sundown, in the summer. In the winter the company will be hard pressed to give them 40hours work a week, many will be laid off because there is no work.

[@Omniseed]

@@johnclements6614 weather dependence doesn't overrule a person's right to say no to overtime

[@IOn_Vash]

Imagine living in a country where the government can seize your bank account for saying something they don't like and going on strike can land you in jail. Canada is becoming a scary place to live.

[@Covargo]

It's becoming like North Korea.

[@theelephantintheroom8016]

@@Covargo The Alberta Government monitors our social media for posts sharing negative opinions about the Alberta oil industry. They are basically monitoring our speech! So yes more like North Korea every day, especially in Alberta!

[@Weathernerd27]

I thought you guys were alot more liberal but the republican party would applaud these tactics. In the US an illegal strike can fine a union to death and you might be fired for cause but you aren't going to jail.

[@jointedlimb]

@@Weathernerd27 lmao... man you need to reexamine your politics in a big way. Liberals are why we're in this mess. Do yourself a favor. Vote republican

[@Weathernerd27]

@@jointedlimb Vote for the party that wants to get rid of Social Security, Give the absurdly wealthy even more tax breaks, allow more big companies to pay no taxes, ban abortion, ban birth control, selects a monster like Trump as their candidate? Yeah right. I will gladly vote 3rd party although. If republicans fixed social security without raising the retirement age, made the rich and big companies pay the same percentage taxes as the average person, reinstated ROE V WADE/stopped trying to ban birth control and selected a more intelligent canidate like Mitt Romney then I'd vote republican. Trust is earned and republicans would have to do alot of good things to make up for the many bad things they have done in recent years.

[@binaryblade2]

I think the issue here was that for other workers with the bargaining unit, the company offered extra incentives outside the contract for overtime in the heat and not equally among all those represented. The company was picking and choosing and so was already in violation of the contract. One of the big things with CBAs is that it empowers employees by preventing the company from picking favourites.

[@kenlieberman4215]

If those workers are represented by a different union, then there will be a different contract. They have to wait for the end of their current contract in order to renegotiate.

[@sainttroglodyte]

@@kenlieberman4215 increased danger is not part of the original contract which means the contract has to be renegotiated as what's being asked out of the union employs original contract goes beyond the original contractual agreement, basically there being asked to work in more dangerous situations outside the contract which means this should go before an arbiter so fair pay occurs under the law

[@TheCatherineCC]

Alberta is a fucking shithole where entitled employers work hand in hand with a compromised judiciary. There is a reason Alberta is constantly looking for skilled workers, it's because people get fed up with constant abuse and leave. The promise of high salaries isn't there. Median wage from statscan tells the truth.

[@SmittyAZ]

My Union had 'strict' rules on equal distribution of OT; At the end of the year, it should balance out. The guys at the bottom could get paid the OT at the hours of the middle of the group. Of course, it was up to the Supervisor to keep track of offers and refusals...

[@FoamCrusher]

It sounds like one union had a provision that bonuses could be given to its members under certain conditions (extreme heat) and the scaffolders union did not, so they didn’t get it and the members are upset. Don’t blame the employer. Blame the scaffolders bargaining agent for not looking at the contracts of the employer’s other unions and negotiating the bonus provision. The scaffolders union president should have been out front on this tampering down what essentially was a wildcat strike, but wasn’t. Plenty of blame to go around.

[@bikerdad63]

The way I see it if you are going to court to force someone to work overtime it is no longer voluntary overtime.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

That's the way any reasonable person sees it. One of the issues with courts is that the judges and attorneys are often more interested in the legal theories than the reality to the actual parties in the dispute.

[@galaxywolf4895]

A business model should never rely on "voluntary" over time.

[@iFYMxDRKNSFALLS]

sad to say it’s how things get done. during 2020 covid lock down. my entire team was doing Ot. with hazard pay and all OT was double time. great money to be and was made. so the incentive to do the OT was worth it. but once the hazard pay and Double time was gone. ppl now doing their basic 40 hours.

[@ace-kz9id]

@@iFYMxDRKNSFALLS its only done like that cause companies refuse to hire more people if you need to force OT then your doing it wrong

[@dwaynepenner2788]

I would think relying on mandatory overtime would be worse...

[@thewebdiva5903]

@@dwaynepenner2788 It is but saving on benefits is the incentive for companies to do that. I don’t think that collective bargaining agreement was beneficial to the employees.

[@anonamouse5917]

Where I worked, they relied on voluntary overtime and it worked fine. They offered double time for anything over 8 hours. Employees got fat paycheques and the company didn't have to train & pay benefits to people that they would only need occasionally. On that point, imagine what it would be like to try to retain employees you only need occasionally.

[@LordMondegrene]

So if the union ratifies an abusive agreement, the bosses can have them jailed. Who could possibly object to such a reasonable, humane form of slavery?

[@corssecurity]

I've worked in various unionized and non-union companies. The standard CBA states that no work stoppage or slow down will occur during the duration of the contract. Labour boards exist and the union is absolutely able to file a complaint. Possibly the labour board will consider the unsafe working conditions as a separate issue if a proper complaint was made. I have invoked that particular legal code /human rights twice in 25 years. Never went further than the company and union as they agreed. Now there was an existing labour shortage and government / employer policy regarding personal health status that's been in the news (cogh) has exasperated the situation. People doing twice as much work as they used to.

[@LadyAdakStillStands]

Bingo! So many out of work. Why hire new when employers can just double down assigned duties onto current staff! One might get a slight pay raise and overtime, and unnecessary stresses come with it.

[@pjp_renaissance]

My mom was shop steward for almost 20 years and during that time there was good and bad leadership. It is entirely possible their representative is not up to the task - perhaps not inclined to put the actual work in or simply too much of a pushover

[@dough9512]

@@pjp_renaissance Or they (the union reps) get a little money extra under the table! Happened MANY a times!! And many people have died before they could spend that extra money!!

[@davidhalbisen6507]

If the working conditions are "unsafe", then why not just that instead of including additional compensation? I wonder if the only things that have changed are everyday prices, labor "shortages", but maybe not their wages due to a binding contract.

[@SirBrass]

But what about demands to work beyond the contracted hours without additional pay like here? The workers essentially just refused to do OT, and just work the contracted hours. That seems to be reasonable and not a breech of the CBA.

[@NoName-ik2du]

For a bit of context to the overtime (from my experience working with a union in the past), overtime can be _mandatory_ for some employees but _voluntary_ for others. This obviously depends on how the labor contract is written, but ours worked as follows (with hypothetical numbers): - Say our department has 40 employees, and we *must have* 10 employees work on Saturday. - Starting with the highest seniority employee and working down, people are asked if they'd like to work Saturday. They can accept or refuse. - If _all 40_ employees are asked and a total of 10 is not reached, the _low seniority_ employees then become _required_ to come in to fill the gap to make up the total of 10 that is needed. They called this "asking from the top, forcing from the bottom" and it basically meant the top 30 employees (in this example) had optional overtime, but the bottom 10 were at risk of having mandatory overtime (if there weren't enough volunteers). If those bottom people didn't come in, they'd have an unexcused absence go on their record (which could result in disciplinary action depending on how many points the employee had). There were also other provisions in the contract that said the overtime _had_ to be posted by a certain time in the week to give employees enough time to plan ahead. Even though this is an agreed set of rules signed by the union and the company, I could easily see this being spun into a "corporations are evil" story on Reddit about how employees risked being fired for refusing voluntary overtime.

[@legobumb]

I guess I'm quitting and going elsewhere if "voluntary" overtime isn't actually voluntary. Screw that employer and that union. The workers are well within their rights as individuals to turn down voluntary overtime (collectively or not; doesn't matter). The employer is just butthurt that it's messing with their profit margins, so they went crying to the court and told a heavily skewed version of the truth to try and forcibly get their way. Existence of a union or not- if I want to grab some voluntary overtime one week and then the next week I don't, I don't care if the other 50 workers also don't grab overtime the same week as me. Imagine being sent to jail because you didn't voluntarily work outside of your contract. Imagine sending all of your workers to jail and making zero money for a while because you got butthurt about none of them wanting to work voluntary overtime. Imagine being the judge sentencing all these workers to serve jail time because they didn't voluntarily work outside their contract. Imagine being the prosecutor for this, siding with the employer without a second thought nor care about wanting to send people to jail over not working voluntary overtime. Imagine being the families of these workers who now suddenly have to go without a family member for a while because they have to serve their jail time over not working outside of their contract. I can keep going, but I think you all get the point now.

[@ronblack7870]

it was a conspiracy you fool.

[@legobumb]

@CJRock The entire point is that the legal contract doesn't state they are required to work overtime - hence the "voluntary" aspect. I think you need to re-watch the video and/or re-read my post.

[@yunofun]

@@legobumb The ruling doesn't state th at they have to accept the voluntary OT either. It states that they cannot collectively refuse to force a change in contract.

[@legobumb]

​@@yunofun They can collectively refuse all they want. After all, voluntary overtime is voluntary. Good luck proving they did it with the intent to force a change in contract. Everyone can just say they didn't feel like grabbing overtime that week or whatever other excuse. This is literally just another case of employer trying to force their way onto their workers because their profits got messed with. Give all your workers equal opportunity at bonuses (or at minimum, a reasonably equal split of bonuses; obviously those who do more work should get a higher bonus; etc) and this type of stuff wouldn't happen. It's as simple as that. Stop trying to screw people over in the workplace.

[@yunofun]

@@legobumb Sure... With the exception of the letter.

[@maximummarklee]

This is a civil matter, isn’t it? Where does jail become part of a non-contempt civil penalty? Being forced to work under threat of violence and imprisonment is called SLAVERY (see Roy Batty in the ending of Blade Runner, saying "Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave."

[@kenstewart4303]

Jail time wouldn’t be for refusing overtime. It would be for defying a court order.

[@MuzixMaker]

Like tears in rain.

[@petervansan1054]

@@kenstewart4303 which tells you to work...

[@yunofun]

@@petervansan1054 The court order doesn't compel them to work, it is telling them they cannot refuse the work in a coordinated effort to change the contract.

[@dogishappy0]

I remember when I worked part time at retail. They wanted me to work overtime, I loved reminding them I couldn't legally work over 25 hours. My regular work week was 24 hours.

[@adamtajhassam9188]

I wish Steve would work under Canadian Law NOT JUST U.S.A

[@zapazap]

Where was this? I heard of this in medicine, but never in retail. Cheers! :)

[@dogishappy0]

@@TheBooban three 8-hour days.

[@dogishappy0]

@@zapazap this was over a decade ago when I worked at a Walmart Distribution center.

[@zapazap]

@@dogishappy0 They were demanding you work 25 hour days?

[@jdgindustries2734]

Granted: I'm a union member, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen... This update says nothing new to me, the description of the employees' work, I just assumed they were union with an agreement contract. New information would be how the contract defines the requirements of overtime... If the contract says "Overtime shall be hours in excess of 40 per week, paid at XX.xx/hr rate, and shall be entirely voluntary", then in no way does refusing overtime count as a work slowdown. The contract specifically says its the employee's choice. regardless if its coordinated or not, its still contractually the employees' choice. As for your comment about injury vs jail with both arms, this is the exact reason why railroaders are preparing to walk off the job on September 15th, should our Unions be unable to gain an acceptable agreement. We've been without a contract for 3 years now, and the rhetoric used by the companies has only exacerbated the issues... declaring workers to be their greatest liability, treating us as expendable rather than essential during the pandemic, and now, issuing a statement that railroad labor plays NO part in the railroads' profitability. Despite having just bought a house, I am fully prepared to join my brothers & sisters on the picketline the moment that the strike is declared; we've put up with enough offensive behavior from the companies over the years, its about time we remind wall street that the reason the railroads have ANY profitability is due to the men and women who operate, repair, and maintain the rails, signals, communications, rolling stock, and locomotives.

[@patrickbuick5459]

Similar rhetoric over the years about I.T. "Just a cost center, doesn't contribute to profit!" Neither does a CEO, they don't personally make anything that is sold for profit! Tools are necessary and none of those tools make anything that is sold for profit if nobody maintains and runs them! A full-to-the-brim Snap-On truck fixes 0 vehicles by itself!

[@adamcarlone]

That's crazy that not working "voluntary" overtime is considered a strike if enough people decide they don't want to.

[@migrivp2672]

And depending on where you are volunteering for overtime doesn't imply you are getting paid for said overtime.

[@balaamsass5540]

Yea, there is a huge difference between a sickout and not accepting overtime shifts. If no one wants the overtime, there is damned sure a reason. probably a very good one.

[@migrivp2672]

@@balaamsass5540 yea they don't get paid as over time, some are not paid at all since they complain.

[@ttww1590]

It's an oilfeild camp, and they previously would request overtime.

[@banderson716]

Spoken like a person who has no idea what a union is and how it works. Try educating your self before developing an opinion; maybe.

[@descension7419]

As someone working on the site discussed, one detail I can offer is: the scaffolders actually just want benefits already being given to several other trades. (Not even all the same benefits, but just some of them). Additionally, the scaffolders are reportedly quitting at increased rates, much faster than they can be replaced. The working conditions are uncomfortable, but nothing new, including the heat/weather. Refusal of unsafe work is expected so safety issues can be addressed and corrected. As for organization - they were not organized. An "anonymous" email was sent out to the scaffolders, asking them to reply if they supported the action, and the replies were used as evidence of organization. Strongest suspect for email origin is Suncor itself.

[@WaryFatMan]

"There is NO allegation here that the employer wasn't honoring the contract." - Um, that may be true, in which case they need a new lawyer. The contract says overtime is voluntary? If the labor relations board wants a finding against those who have collectively distributed materials that caused this, fine. Let 'em prove it. In the meantime, with the current "directives", as an employee going forward, if asked or requested to work overtime, the response should be "Is it voluntary?" - and either it is or it ain't. The answer can only be yes... At which point the employee could legally respond "No thanks!". Really... they need a new lawyer. The employer has no contract to enforce involuntary overtime. And doing so through manipulation of labor laws is invalid. So my question is for the court or you: HOW DOES ONE COLLECTIVELY ACT AGAINST/FOR SOMETHING VOLUNTARY WHICH IS NOT IN THE CONTRACT? That is, regardless of what customarily has occurred voluntarily (because that is NOT collective volunteering, but individual voluntary action - which may be covered by contract after the fact), how can it be collective if each instance is an individual's decision?!?!?

[@danielhawkins6425]

The collective action was an attempt to basically extort the company into giving them the bonus. That's the violation.

[@TheSjuris]

@@gracchus7782 they get overtime pay. It’s not like they are working extra hours and not getting paid for it. They just weren’t getting a bonus that other workers who aren’t part of that union are getting.

[@WaryFatMan]

Collective action on voluntary, or if you'll allow, at-will work? Sorry. This may have hurt the employer but not all actions, even collective ones, are a violation EVEN IF there is a no-strike agreement. And that's true even for collective actions on CONTRACTED work. If the employer wanted something else, they should have written it into the contract. Of course, i have not read the contract - so I don't know. But I doubt it says that voluntary (thus at-will) work is non-voluntary if we say so. I'll bet it simply says that it IS voluntary, and IF/WHEN choosing to work voluntarily, this contract governs the terms of that at-will work.

[@dwaynepenner2788]

@@WaryFatMan from a legal perspective your wrong. Period. Labour law is tricky and nuanced. The violation here is COLLECTIVE job action. Any job action initiated during the course of the valid CBA likely constituted a breach of the CBA, even if it was individually allowable.

[@nicholasbassett9447]

@@dwaynepenner2788 in the US this has happened in CA. It went up to the 9th circuit who deemed it permissible to collectively reject voluntary overtime. Although, the union lost because section 8(g) requires 10 days written notice to healthcare institutions. The court found that had the union given 10 days notice it would have been perfectly legal. My guess is that had this situation unfolded in the US, particularly in the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit it would have been found legal.

[@Zyphera]

I funny fact: if it's an exceptional hot summer all workers might have felt without communication with each others that it's too dangerous to work over time. Working overtime can mean it's harder to stay alert enough together with the heat to work in a safe manner.

[@jdstar6352]

VOLUNTARY overtime. Voluntary. What do you think "voluntary" means? Overtime must be spelled out in the contract as voluntary or this issue wouldn't be coming up. The company is the one violating the labor agreement by attempting to convert the contract provision for *voluntary* OT into one for *INvoluntary* OT. The company bargained that workers would be allowed to decline and refuse overtime assignments. What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

[@bindingcurve]

What part are you failing to understand that they are organizing a work slowdown.

[@RampageRich]

@@bindingcurve if it's voluntary overtime it isn't a work slow down its going home when you have worked your contracted hours.

[@LadyViolet1]

@bindingcurve The business should be able to run fine without workers doing overtime; if it doesn't that's the employers fault and they should hire more workers so that doesn't happen. Or they should have put mandatory overtime in the contract instead, but they didn't.

[@bindingcurve]

@@RampageRich if it's voluntary overtime how come they are plotting to not take it. I'm sure you would be real popular if you took overtime.

[@johnclements6614]

@@LadyViolet1 People working in construction on these remote sites want overtime. There is often little to do apart from watch Steve Lehto or TV. No wife or kids there. Come the winter there will be no work because its too cold and then they will spend time at home living off their summers pay or head south. If the company did not offer overtime no one would want to work there. Therefore the company has to plan the work around a certain amount of overtime.

[@iggysfriend4431]

A similar kind of strong arming by the company has happened before. What tends to happen is that the employees all of a sudden go off sick.

[@joshentheosparks7492]

They should learn from the police union's hussle: strike while denying a strike is happening.

[@BluetheRaccoon]

Agreed! Work *real slow*. Overtime is not voluntary when it's enforced with jail time. Sounds like they need to have the union re-negotiate. How can overtime be mandated in such a dangerous job, under such grueling conditions? I'd honestly quit.

[@MoireFly]

@@BluetheRaccoon It sounds like the overtime isn't mandatory. The prohibition is merely on collectively organizing rejection of overtime, despite a previous agreement between union and employer not to do work stoppages (likely in return for higher wages). But I'm curious if the court's opinion here will matter. It's not requiring overtime of any specific worker (and it probably can't do that), so as long as overtime rejection is merely uncoordinated individual action, even if those choices are influenced by the knowledge that a better deal might be possible as long as many people reject overtime - well, the net effect might still be the same, and then what? Probably, then nothing; the company will still need to renegotiate. I wonder if that's going to happen...

[@dwaynepenner2788]

@@BluetheRaccoon an organized work slow down would also be a breach of the CBA. COLLECTIVE or organized job action is the issue here.

[@satoau1]

how does working 40 hours a week while refuse overtime constitute a strike?

[@roachymart2318]

@@BluetheRaccoon Yup, after the normal work hours, just get real worn out all of a sudden... Wobble the fuck out of that OT, just talk about doing it somewhere not work related like a bar a few miles/kilometers down the road. Maybe everyone is working slow, maybe it takes 5 guys to figure out how to remove a rounded off bolt for a half hour...

[@justinstephenson9360]

The key is what constitutes "collective" action. Is it collective if I refuse to do overtime and post on social media that I am not doing OT and other employees see it and individually decide to join in? To my mind "collective" implies a more active role in organising than that, but I suspect labor law probably has not caught up with closed social media groups

[@dbadaddy7386]

If a large enough pool from the same union at the same worksite begin behaving similarly, it is not unreasonable to consider it to be a collective action, particularly when it is openly discussed. It sounds like part of the collective agreement includes a certain amount of overtime, and the union was in violation because of the actions of its members. No individual member might be required to work overtime, but the group can be punished if the group does not follow the agreement involving overtime. And that means the union will stick the members with the bill with a special assessment. So in the end, not working the overtime means everyone gets to pay the bill.

[@dwaynepenner2788]

Given the circumstances why on earth would you disclose on social media you are choosing not to work overtime. When looking at a ruling, or heaven forbid, prosecution why tip the balance of facts any way but your direction? And closed social media groups don’t protect against a subpoena.

[@alexandersteel7272]

​@@dbadaddy7386 IANAL but how can you prove it is collective action and not a change in the working environment that everyone is individually reacting to? If an office has an in house barista and replaced them with a drip coffee machine for cost saving measures and then everyone starts working from home is that collective action or is that the incentive to come into the office is no longer there? The loss of the Barrista will certainly have been discussed and I'm certain someone will have said "Steve was the only reason I come into the office at all" does that constitute organization of collective action? I have not followed this story outside of these two videos but it appears to me that there was a change in the working environment (enough that the company offered extra incentives for overtime to other workers) and now people are acting differently.

[@zapazap]

I believe it turns on intent to further collective action. Cheers! :)

[@ronblack7870]

@@dwaynepenner2788 because these people are not bright bulbs

[@danielpalmer8156]

Naw no employer can pressure any employee to work voluntary overtime for any reason. Also any employee can refuse said time for any reason they like including to pressure the employer to pay more and or fair and equal pay that they are willing to pay others. Discrimination against any employee can and should be fought over. This will get appealed and reversed in no time.

[@yunofun]

That isn't how CBAs work...

[@annettesurfer]

Just because they’re in a Union and covered by an agreement, the employer threatening incarceration for refusing overtime is still absurd and exemplifies how the government rules/laws are tailored to favor corporations rather than the populace. Requiring mandatory overtime in the contract sounds like a failure of Union representation, or perhaps they were bribed by the employer to sign an “employer friendly” contract. Unions today aren’t as strong as they were in the past so I could see how a business agent/manager could sell his/her soul just to keep the non-union scabs away from a project but from personal experience…Union reps often become closer to the employers than those they’re supposed to represent.

[@joew8438]

Compelling work under threat of force or jail. I think there's a word for that.

[@musclesmouse]

$lavery?

[@GamesFromSpace]

Capitalism.

[@buckfisherGBY]

I thought you said they were using "work to rule", by not working overtime. Unless their contract requires them to work overtime, they are not striking, they are working according to requirements of the contract. Your point about working dangerous jobs, brings up a valid point. If you are already tired, and do not feel safe doing your work, without your allowed off-time, they are trying to force you to work in unsafe situations. Unless they are conspiring to do something outside what their contract allows, they shouldn't be in violation of anything. The contract did not appear to say they could not get together to talk about following the contract, they are not promoting stopping work entirely. They are only refusing to accept voluntary overtime, not included in the contract requirements.

[@yendub]

So, how many quit because of this? Because, good luck with an employer that threatens jail time for refusing overtime to hire more workers, um, slaves.

[@SC-gs8dc]

Probably no one. It's an extremely well paying job. Extremely. And the jail time threat is for trying to convince others not to work. If you refuse OT that's fine, if you push someone else to refuse that's an offense.

[@yendub]

@@SC-gs8dc So, basically, nothing has changed. Everyone keeps refusing the overtime for whatever reason (personally I'd do it in protest of this legal order). Business is still upset. Can't wait till they try to get someone charged and in jail.

[@paulsmart4672]

@@SC-gs8dc It's super not, though. Like, there are laws about freedom of speech and freedom of association, and stuff, right? Collective bargaining is a consequence of the existence of those rights. In a way where you're not even able to sign it away. That's why Conservative premiers have such a hard on for the notwithstanding clause.

[@RandySmith-MotoSage]

Many years ago I used to work with an construction group that worked with a lot of union workers. So I had an opportunity to review a lot of Union contracts. Most of the union contracts included a clause to make overtime voluntary but in many of the contracts there were certain conditions in which the voluntary overtime would become mandatory overtime if the conditions were met. One of the conditions was where a lot of employees were out sick around the same time. Or if several employees had quit and their position have not been filled yet. But if the job fail behind because of unpredicted circumstances it becomes the employers responsibility to add additional employees and not to force employees to work overtime if the employees do not want to work the overtime. Plus I have seen conditions in which the employees deliberately drag their feet to generate additional overtime opportunities, but if they are caught than it usually goes before the labor board for a contract review. To sum this up you really need to see the contract to understand what conditions are involved in this case.

[@gscurd75]

So which employees are the ones that should be jailed? Some of them would refuse overtime regardless. Wouldn't you have to prove that individual was planning on working overtime but only changed their mind when they read the letter? "Letter? What letter? My buddy Joe that I always work with isn't working OT so I turned it down. Time just crawls when I can't work with my buddy Joe."

[@christopherg2347]

Steve missed the core: "Overtime is voluntary, *unless there are not enough volunteers* to get the job done."

[@ryanc473]

Or just, you know, any plan whatsoever on that day. My kids baseball game, a date, hanging out with friends, doctors appointment, hell, just running errands since it's the day I like to shop/the day that the store seems to have the best stock. There's SO many simple excuses, as simple as "I've got plans already, sorry." Then just call up some friends for that day lol, or whatever. Hell, book a massage even. Anything at all, it's not difficult. It's also funny that it could absolutely be something as simple as everyone gets the same idea at the same time, no real collusion, just a by-product of treating your workers like s**t. It's funny how if you treat your employees that way, they often tend to not want to work more than the bare minimum. Seems like a simple natural consequence, not a concerted effort per say

[@SC-gs8dc]

It's only the person telling them/pressuring them to not take the OT that is risking the jail time under the order.

[@IKvASS]

OK so he got C&D so what? What would happen if they continued to refuse overtime?

[@gscurd75]

@@ryanc473 Very true. We had mandatory overtime for about a month. Even though it was only 5 hours a week it still stacked up and messed with people's normal schedules. Nearing the end of that month several people ended up using up their sick time and in many cases worked less total hours than if they just did 40 per week.

[@thomaspc0]

This reminds me of when my wife worked as a bank teller. She left because she got a new job. Within two weeks, ALL of the tellers had resigned. This was not a coordinated effort, but rather a result of timing. Everyone had had enough of the bank manager being a jerk. The last girl out was pregnant, and the jerk yelled at her.

[@andrewshowland]

It shouldn't be considered voluntary if it's not

[@christopherg2347]

It wasn't. That was part of the existing agreement. That was in effect.

[@BlackJesus8463]

Can't force them to work from jail either.

[@kstricl]

I work with Alberta companies that operate in the Patch. Every company I've printed safety material for has a right to refuse unsafe work - sounds like the work environment is becoming unsafe to me. Edit: wrote this before Steve talking about this. Also, extreme heat warnings above the 54th parallel in Alberta are issued when projected temperatures get into the 80's - so when we talk extreme heat, Florida man is putting on a jacket.

[@gordonshumway7239]

These situations (sick outs / overtime refusal) are always interesting. Obviously the Union is avoiding an overt strike while at least tacitly supporting an action on overtime. What I heard in the order Steve read is a prohibition on the Union or its members organizing overtime refusal, but not prohibiting employees from refusing overtime. That would make sense. How far the court might go in inferring collective action in the future we don’t know. Now I have run a number of factories. My feeling is that something is off with the employer here. The story literally said “nobody” was accepting overtime. I’ve never encountered a situation where nobody wanted overtime. There’s always some number of money driven workers who are always looking for OT. And SynCrude is an enormous operation. If EVERYONE is refusing, something is wrong. There’s been a great deal of “abusive” use of mandatory overtime here in the US. Companies are short of workers and are pushing the ones they have to the limit. I just wonder if something like that is going on here. Note re: the 10 hour shifts. It sounded to me like it’s still a 40 hour week before OT. That’s 4 on x 10 hrs. and 3 off. Not an uncommon schedule in manufacturing.

[@ttww1590]

It's a remote camp where workers consistently request overtime, and 10-20 days on site before returning home. They asked for more money from their union and employer, got told no, then stopped working overtime as of the 22nd. It's just greed.

[@deth3021]

@@ttww1590 the whole thing is based on greed. So why shouldn't the workers also be greedy. Companies aren't charities.

[@damnnamethieves]

So here's the thing that strikes me about this - Yes, the original story left out that there was a CBA in force, but I assumed that to be the case as soon as the word union was mentioned. If you're a union worker, unless your contract has expired and you're continuing work under the old contract while a new one is being negotiated, you almost 100% have a CBA in place - that's kinda what unions do. So it being left out isn't a big deal, because one should assume it. Next is that the board order prohibited collective action, but not individual action... and yet, the employer sent out a memo heavily implying that the board ordered workers to accept overtime; that is clearly not the case from the order. So IMO the employer is acting in extremely bad faith attempting to hoodwink its employees. And finally, an order prohibiting the collective refusal of overtime is, pragmatically speaking, unenforceable - at least against the employees. How do you even enforce that? How do you prove it? Sure, we can all agree that if everyone refuses overtime that it's likely that there's some sort of collective action going there. But absent a recording of a discussion, or a written letter, or some other proof of who is organizing said action or pushing said action... how do you PROVE it? How do you prove that any individual employee is taking part in a collective action rather than an individual one? Ok, great, a court finds that there is collective action going on with refusal to do overtime. Now, me being me, after seeing my employer go to court, get an order like this and then act in bad faith trying to convince everyone they're going to go to jail for refusing overtime, I would absolutely refuse overtime from that point forward as a matter of principle. I don't give a damn what the rest of the employees do, I'm not doing overtime anymore - at all. Not a single minute of it. What may have started as a collective action becomes individual. If they try to pursue individual employees, or ask the court to find employees in contempt, likely as a scare tactic and to make an example of someone... how do they prove that employee is still acting collectively (which is the only thing prohibited) and therefore violating the order, versus saying to themselves ok, fine, I won't coordinate but you just fucked yourself with me... I'll never accept overtime again. You want to treat people like that, fuck off. I know I'm not the only person out there who's stubborn and spiteful like that. Pragmatically speaking, the court has no reasonable way to make that determination in any individual case. They can reasonably infer that there is most likely collective action going on, but they cannot say (with any assurance of accuracy) whether any individual is refusing overtime as part of that collective or on their own regardless of what the collective does.

[@lynchkid003]

Thank you, you summed this up better then I could. I too find it suspicious that NOBODY was taking the voluntary overtime. Every job I've worked at has SOMEONE who wants overtime for 'X' reason. If they're forcing mandatory overtime beyond the contract, that's different. But that's something that would give the union a legitimate contract violation, and 'reason to strike'.

[@johnassal5838]

This economy wide propensity to pay overtime rather than hire more workers seems to indicate that pay must be undeniably low across the entire economy. Otherwise paying time and a half would be too expensive and a sufficient incentive to hire more workers rather than insist on forced overtime. I get it's always a business with a bottom line resistant to raising base pay but from the perspective of the business it's always best avoid overtime outside of unavoidable random or rare but predictable instances like holidays instead of insisting on this forced overtime as a normal occurrence. It's that normal occurrence part seems so odd. It's completely antithetical to normal business motives unless labor is already getting thoroughly screwed every which way on base rates imo.

[@markstephens743]

Very well done Steve! I love how you explained everything including the ruling on this very important issue.

[@pianotm]

So, it's actually mandatory overtime. So, the contract says overtime is voluntary, but everyone decided not to take it, so a judge ruled that this was an illegal strike, even though there was no actual work-stoppage. I mean, this just sounds like the judge accepted a bribe. He just made a ruling that makes overtime mandatory. If something's not in a contract and you just expect it of your workers, you can't just go to court and get it if the workers decide to not give you what you're expecting without any contract stipulation.

[@mikeymaiku]

im pretty sure its the lie they used to say no. just say no, theres litterally no need to go " we are all sick" if thats the way you say "no" to overtime. im going to say they want to be open a extra day, regardless if the employees want to or not. that still wont change the fact that the employees just say no, and that extra day cannot be officially setup, but hey unions are unions right?

[@toma.1670]

The issue of overtime was not addressed. The workers are showing up for their shift, just not for the "voluntary overtime". What if the "Anonymous Letter" was generated by management? I am sure there contract covers a "Safe Working Condition". 10 hours seems unsafe to me. Thou the safety issue might be under a separate Grievance. Keep in mind that a grievance in California can take up to 4 years to get the grievance to an Arbitrator.

[@roberthodgins8856]

Thanks Steve. I appreciate you doing a deeper dive into this. So often news stories are reported in such slanted ways.

[@jeffreyharvey8111]

I agree with you totally.

[@hantenfox3357]

As a union worker I do have to say that we do have contracts that may vary from venue to venue and you can’t break a contract. Neither the workers or the employer can breach it. Works both ways. If you want to change a contracts terms you must work out the current contract and then when a contract is up for negotiations, that’s when you fight to get a change.

[@plutus205]

It sounds like the Employer is implying a blackmailing scheme.

[@dwaynepenner2788]

black balling would be more accurate.

[@blaneyphotovideo]

Nobody should be compelled to work. Period. Work beyond the terms of one's willingness and desire is slavery.

[@brianward7550]

The difference being, is that sick time is to be used for when you're actually sick. Everyone is not going to get sick all at the same time so that is clearly a coordinated effort. If overtime is voluntary everyone can choose to not take it and that's not fraudulent. They have simply decided to no longer do work that they're not obligated to do by contract, seems to lean heavily in favor of labor in this case

[@fenixiliusstrife1253]

Lol you do not know how sickens spreads in the work place. You must not work. A whole bunch of people hanging around togther, where have I heard that being a possible spread location before.... God people like you are really dumb.

[@christopherg2347]

Steve left out that "Overtime is voluntary, *unless there are not enough volunteers* to get the job done." That was part of the signed union agreement.

[@PvblivsAelivs]

Well, if everybody happens to choose not to take overtime, that's not fraudulent. If they make a secret agreement, it is. If for example 25 out of 100 available workers normally takes the overtime, this letter gets passed around and it suddenly drops to zero, it looks more than a little suspicious.

[@janitorizamped]

You're deliberately ignoring the fact that the court saw evidence of it being a collective effort (the letter).

[@Riverrockphotos]

This was clearly a coordinated effort. The letter proves that. You can't strike while a contract is in order. Unless the employer is actively violating it. Unions are great these guys were trying to take advatiage of there stiuation. Now that said if the site is unsafe then they have a lilgit gripe. I would say very high temps and working ouside is unsafe. Is september and here in salt lake the next three days are going to be over 100 degrees. This year we will have had like 29 days of the summer over 100 degress. previous record was like 23 days.

[@jasonpatterson8091]

So if I were an employee of this company at this point I would very much individually not want to go to any extra effort to please them, and they could shove their overtime where the sun doesn't shine. If all of my coworkers feel the same, individually, then screw the company. That decision absolutely DID NOT say that workers had to take overtime.

[@GeorgieB1965]

"Mandatory-voluntary overtime" is impossible. Overtime is either voluntary or mandatory, can't be both. With state contracts, it's written in boilerplate language that overtime isn't a given, it's offered to employees and they have the right to accept or not. Mandatory is exactly that. You must do, or you can get disciplined for refusing to do it. There are no shades of gray.

[@nicellis44]

Voluntary for the individual worker, mandatory for the workers union. Each individual person had no obligation to work overtime, but the union had agreed by contract to ensure that enough people volunteered. This is why it was the union that was named in the lawsuit, and the union that was ordered to comply.

[@kenbrown2808]

there are contracts that say overtime is individually voluntary, but providing adequate staffing is mandatory. this is most often seen in the public safety sector, but can also be applied to other union contracts. case in point, if there is a job to be dispatched, and nobody takes it, many unions can call members and give them the option of taking the job or being moved to the bottom of the out-of-work list.

[@nicellis44]

@@amandak.4246 The difference is that it's the union's problem, not the workers. The emplyer tells the union "I don't care who shows up so long as somebody does). The employer never forces any individual person to work anything. Everything is through the union, often a significant monetary penalty in the contract for failing to fulfill their obligation to organize enough people to work the needed overtime. The union can offer perks or internal penalties (within the union membership contract) to union members that don't step up when needed. This is how similar to how most staffing agencies are run.

[@omegafighters]

I love that they somehow backdoored indentured servitude, and denying free speech and association, all under the guise of "contracts". How the hell else are abuse or exploited workers supposed to get better conditions if they can't strike whenever they need to? example situation: 18 deaths later, the company goes back to the court and says "we have a court order and these slaves... err contractors aren't doing their job anymore. Put them in jail please."

[@heathbruce9928]

While I agree with you, they are in Canada. Do they have a similar document to the US regarding contractor situation you mentioned?

[@fishevans6417]

Its about how its organised - whats happening would be prefectly leagle if the union asked for improved conditions/remition, negotiated, negotiations failed, the union polled the effected members who decided to strike, whats not leagle is the collustion between workers to negativly effect the businesss with out going through the right process. there is a differance between a strike and this.

[@buckhorncortez]

Oh...BS. Contracts are a negotiated agreement between two parties, not a one-sided mandate like you attempting to infer. If you don't like the agreement, DON"T SIGN THE CONTRACT or negotiate better terms. Just stop with the idea that one side is taking advantage of the workers. Blame the union - they allegedly represent the workers.

[@omegafighters]

@@heathbruce9928 Not sure if this is what your asking, but Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is very similar to the US First Amendment.

[@omegafighters]

​@@buckhorncortez > Just stop with the idea that one side is taking advantage of the workers. Isn't that literally the point of capitalism? It's not to benefit the worker, it's to benefit the owners. The only option is to collectively fight the power/wealth of the rich because they are so rich they can out afford any individual worker with attorney fees and court costs until they win. And if you're in a closed shop that requires you to go though the union the union is now disincentivized to keep you happy and focus on keeping themselves in power. If you can't go though your union what other options do you have?

[@dandotvid]

If you are requiring your employees to work overtime, sounds like you need to hire more employees. It's not voluntary if you require the volunteers.

[@kurtwetzel154]

It can't be voluntary overtime if threatened with jail and punishment. It's mandatory overtime.

[@johnclements6614]

People working in construction on these remote sites want overtime. There is often little to do apart from watch Steve Lehto or TV. No wife or kids there. Come the winter there will be no work because its too cold and then they will spend time at home living off their summers pay or head south. If the company did not offer overtime no one would want to work there. Therefore the company has to plan the work around a certain amount of overtime.

[@johnclements6614]

@@amandak.4246 What do you disagree with in my comment.

[@franklewis414]

How did not working “voluntary” overtime get construed as an illegal strike? I can agree if the employees refuse to work during “normal” working hours.

[@dwaynepenner2788]

Because it was a collective action to reduce employee availability and harm the company in employment covered by a CBA which almost certainly explicitly disallows labour action.

[@franklewis414]

@@dwaynepenner2788 I think they need to be more honest about what it is! It’s not “voluntary” overtime; it’s forced labor, given the fact that the workers can be put in jail for refusing to work overtime.

[@franklewis414]

@@dwaynepenner2788 I think they need to be more honest about what it is! It’s not “voluntary” overtime; it’s forced labor, given the fact that the workers can be put in jail for refusing to work overtime.

[@dwaynepenner2788]

​@@franklewis414 It is voluntary overtime, but collectively refusing it makes it a job action. Any one individual refusing is not against labour law, the contract or is subject to the ruling of the labour board, despite what the companies letter implies. Further the company can't put employees in jail...they don't have that power. The court can if their orders are defied. There order was to stop COLLECTIVE action.

[@franklewis414]

@@dwaynepenner2788 I understand what you are saying if there is a conspiracy, but if everyone completed their contractual 40 hours a week and they all decided not to work over, can they be accused of taking a job action?

[@yodaflyz]

If I worked there, I'd start preparing my resume & looking for other work. The sooner your in a position to quit on them the better. These slave drivers don't respect there employees or should I say court ordered slaves.

[@mr.robinson1982]

I would have been out the door the very same day that I was forced to take "Voluntary Overtime"

[@misterbeeps]

No you wouldn't. These guys get 6 figure salaries.

[@yodaflyz]

@@mr.robinson1982 It's not "Voluntary" if your forced to do it. However, I also know most people do not have a decent emergency fund saved up (3-6 mouths of living expenses is recommended) & can afford to go a while without work to job hunt. Now, if you are prepared & can afford to take the financial hit to make your point as your suggesting, then more power to you.

[@Ryarios]

Resume is worthless. These are Union hands. They simply return to the hall and wait for their next call - which may be long in coming, or they may be out again on another call the next day.

[@scott9676]

@@Ryarios Generally if you refuse work you go to the end of the line for those getting hired. That could be a long time.

[@Cohen.the.Worrier]

How is refusal to work overtime a _strike?_ Strike is refusing to work at all. A prior boss once told me that he would be _reviewing_ my bonus for the previous year (I was on commission) but he assured me it would be _about the same_ with a max of 100 bucks difference over the year. Turns out he cut me about 1,000 every month. He seemed perfectly fine with it. My lawyer not so much. Took the court 1.5 year to figure it out though. I guess the judges felt a bit more pressure in this case.

[@breezyx976]

Employee: I am not paid enough, give me a raise or I quit Employer: Very well, here is a raise or termination Employee(s): We are not paid enough, give us a raise or we will only do what is in the contract Government: Believe it or not, straight to jail.

[@AllanHambrick]

That's Canada. Country full of apologists and Karens and I say that as a Canadian.

[@Woodie-xq1ew]

yeah to me this just seems like a big company was able to bribe the goverment into becoming their attack dogs. what a surpise

[@christopherg2347]

Steve missed the core again: "Overtime is voluntary, *unless there are not enough volunteers* to get the job done."

[@IKvASS]

Why is this the workers problem? Hire more people.

[@ashkebora7262]

@@IKvASS This is the part that _really_ grinds my gears... If it's the _company_ that signed up to do the job, but the _company_ cannot get it done because they mistreat their workers... how it that the _workers_ are paying for it!?! Fucking backwards cult of wage slavery country... Should be illegal to put in to a contract work conditions that would otherwise not be legal, just like you _normally_ cannot sign away your rights. It shouldn't matter how coordinated it is... they should _always_ be allowed to say no to overtime. It's not OVERtime if it's not past what can be required.

[@suntanironman]

What would now happen if an individual worker didn’t want to take on any overtime (for 100% legitimate reasons), but everyone else still continued to collectively refuse to take on any overtime (apparently a violation of an agreement)? Would that individual worker - who would otherwise refused overtime for legitimate reasons - now be forced to take on overtime if asked?

[@Headcase650]

Even with the three-page ruling it still sounds like time for a collective resignation immediately. Most of the civilized world is in a labor revolution. If they resign they're no longer bound by the contract and there's no one else to do their job. This isn't that much different than the hospital story you did a few months ago.

[@kenbrown2808]

at which point, they declare the union in breach of contract, and hire off the street. I'm sure plenty of nonunion scaffolders would be happy to come to work for 90% of the union contract.

[@Headcase650]

@@kenbrown2808 again we come back to the labor shortage, they offered everyone except the scaffolders the bonuses because they can't get anyone to work. If there was a surplus there wouldn't even be this story, they never would have offered the bonuses.

[@kenbrown2808]

@@Headcase650 and again, we come back to the fact that the mine didn't breach the contract, the workers did.

[@realtijuana5998]

@@kenbrown2808 There's a very good chance this union is complicit with management, so they'll get what they deserve.

[@BarryMcFarland-i5x]

I love your programing. It reminds me of the one time in my life (40+ years ago) where a newspaper actually covered a strike AND the specifics of what was asked for and offered etc... In every other example I can think of, newspapers simply say workers are striking for better wages and benefits with no further details.

[@cd5433]

Reddit left out key facts? Unheard of

[@paulsmart4672]

Not key facts. The details of the legal fiction behind a threat of work overtime or go to jail aren't key.

[@CanadianCuttingEdge]

I have to wonder what the burden of proof would be for the court to accept that an individual who continues to refuse overtime is doing so DUE to collective actions. I suspect it would be their individual recent history of accepting or refusing overtime.

[@eddiehuff7366]

Surely somewhere in the contract there is an upper limit to OT. 90 degrees and dog tired climbing around scaffolding sounds very dangerous to me no matter what the contract or law says. I guess good thing I would not be on that jury if it went that far.

[@davidh9638]

To me, 10 hour shifts are de facto overtime to begin with.

[@christopherg2347]

That would be the definition of a security concern, which was not raised with the board.

[@aennaenn7468]

Your mistake was thinking the company cares about safety. They don't, at least, no farther than they have to for liability reasons, and even then, that's what Insurance is for right?

[@alveolarnebulous]

Ice been contemplating this and the hospital story since the video yesterday. It occurs to me that I have heard people say my whole life, that we don't need unions or minimum wages, because if the people refuse to work than companies will have to adapt and meet the demands of the worker. Turns out, companies will just take their employees to court instead of ever improving anything .....

[@elguapo1690]

Yeah, those people need a history lesson. Business has and would force young children to lose life and limb on the job floor, and that's why child labor laws exist. Labor is a resource and is exploited as such by producers.

[@uncletaylorify]

Yet I've also seen greedy unions run a business into bankruptcy. It works both ways.

[@CrudeOilisOrganicYouKnow]

@@elguapo1690 These poor guys are being taken advantage of, they only make $82.30 per hour for the first 2 hours of overtime and $109.74 per hour after that or any Saturday and Sunday work. Give them a break. How about some sympathy guys.

[@rationalbushcraft]

Seems to me it would be easy to argue that more than 8 hours a day in hot weather and on scaffolding is a safety issue. Call me crazy but maybe you have to hire more people.

[@bboywolf]

10*

[@SC-gs8dc]

It's not that bad, it's Northern Alberta they're talking about. Maybe 10 days this year hit 30C/86F. Need to be careful, but generally the temps are good for outside work. Mosquitoes and black flies are more of a nuisance.

[@ttww1590]

They didn't get their own union on board first, and the guys don't want to loose the hours and activly fought to keep them, they want more money for them.

[@miman-ck9jv]

Your crazy 😜

[@michaelpmilligan]

The woman who gives your introduction has the best speaking voice of any voice actor I've ever heard. She was blessed with a perfect speaking voice.

[@somebodyelse6673]

What, exactly, is the evidence that the scaffolders all got together collectively? The court gets to just assume that, without any actual evidence? "It appears..." is evidence now? Like every other thing in courts, it's about what you can prove. If you have no actual evidence to prove it, doesn't belong in court.

[@wy771]

Exactly. I worked for an airline and the station that I worked at got new management. They treated EVERYONE like garbage. That is when I stopped working overtime. To me it just wasn't worth it anymore. Almost everyone else also came to that same conclusion and stopped working overtime. Management thought we were doing an "overtime ban" or whatever they called it. I didn't realize that others weren't doing overtime until the company had a meeting to let us know that they were disappointed in us

[@yunofun]

Except this is in civil court not criminal court. Both in the US and Canada the burden of proof in civil court is much lower than it is in criminal court. Instead of having to prove beyond a doubt that something happens you only need to prove that it is more likely than not. So lets say you have months and months of workers taking the voluntary OT without issue, then it suddenly stops and at the same time they are demanding a change in contract. It is more likely than not that the reason for the stoppage is to force the change.

[@somebodyelse6673]

@@yunofun It is equally likely that it suddenly stops because the problem was suddely applied. What is even more likely, is that the issue pissed off many individual workers who used to want overtime, who individually decided "Screw those guys, I'm not working overtime for them when they treat us like that". Talking about work conditions and hearing from coworkers who are also mad as hell isn't collaboration or conspiracy. Is the standard really that low, that a court can accept a theory without a shred of evidence when there are multiple possible reasons?

[@wy771]

@@somebodyelse6673 absolutely!

[@yunofun]

@@somebodyelse6673 What is more likely? 100 people individually without input from anyone else suddenly deciding no more OT Or 100 people talking about it and deciding to collectively not work it? If there were just a large number of them who refused it would be one thing, reports are that it was 100% That is highly unlikely to be uncoordinated. Toss in the letter that was circulating and its pretty evident what was happening here.

[@fredh3186]

If its voluntary overtime and does no effect normal working hours, it is not a strike. The board should learn to read. This looks like a clear case of the employer trying to take advantage of its workers. 40 hrs is 40hrs Anything beyond that is voluntary

[@dbadaddy7386]

I can see an agreement that can require the union to provide workers for overtime but the overtime is voluntary for any given individual. You do that by making a list of qualified available people and first asking the group for volunteers, then asking them individually and, after getting a certain number of rejections, informing the union rep to deliver a certain number of bodies for overtime or the union pays a fine. So there can be mandatory overtime but with a process to allow volunteers first, and the union becomes responsible for fulfilling the terms of the agreement. In the case of this order, the union could tell people to work the overtime and if they refused then there is a clear list of violators. But ask for volunteers first AND put a maximum number of hours for this kind of work, folks that are not allowed to volunteer after a while to protect their health.

[@chickenmonger123]

That suits the demands, however it is not voluntary. That is a compulsory lottery. The voluntary aspect does not change the fact that someone will eventually be compelled if all refuse. It makes the company able to compel OT, even if it’s the union who must do the compelling, pursuant to the company compelling the Union financially. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad policy. It’s just not voluntary OT.

[@AggressiveLemur]

If each person can't decline, its not voluntary. in my fully uneducated opinion, this is not a "decline of NORMAL circumstances" as the Court ruled. Voluntary overtime isn't normal.

[@Grendelbc]

Actually, the company should go to the local union and ask if they had people on the bench to work weekends. Maybe everybody in the Local is already working and the union couldn't fill the jobs. Then the union just asks neighboring Locals for people. However, maybe the company just didn't want the extra training time and paperwork for new hires.

[@dbadaddy7386]

@@Grendelbc In this case they were refusing because they wanted changes in the contract. It was an intentional effort on the part of the workers. But you do raise a good point. There's only X amount of labor to go around, and it would be unreasonable to hold the union and workers liable if they were saturated. If it looks like that is going to happen foreseeably, it would be unreasonable on the part of the company to accept such a contract. Good project management should anticipate that.

[@LazyBunnyKiera]

There's 1 thing i'm not getting. These workers are working their scheduled contracted hours. They have a contract to work this many hours, so they work this many hours. If the voluntary overtime offerings aren't sufficient, even if they were negotiated in the contract, then why shouldn't they be able to say "We aren't required to work these hours so we won't." Even if they all agreed publicly that the overtime isn't worth it and as a group said they won't work it unless pay and conditions are improved, overtime is still Voluntary and Extra. The only work stoppage i'm truly seeing is the "shift is over, lets go home." If the employer needed people to keep working, maybe they should have anticipated for and written into the contracts and scheduled non-voluntary overtime. The employees could just quit. Not strike, just quit. It would go really bad for them with their union and such, but ultimately, they can't be forced to work. That would be slavery.

[@corvettebob96]

I figured the TRO had something to do with the Collective Bargaining Agreement. My contract is similar. One mistake was probably putting a memo out asking everyone to call in on the same day. It already looks too sketchy if everyone calls in sick on the same day.

[@BardedWyrm]

The union/workers did not "put out a memo". _Someone_ (we don't and likely won't ever know who) circulated an anonymous letter suggesting others decline voluntary overtime.

[@CarlAlex2]

Where did you get the idea they were calling in sick ? They were fulfilling their contractual obligations and refused to do more.

[@LITRband]

It is always suspicious to me that management always seem to find a 'completely anonymous' letter that paints the exact image they want to paint, helpfully dated and stamped, when it comes to things like this

[@PC-vq5ud]

This is an oil company. How often do oil companies lose in court?

[@BeerIndependence4All]

Similar situation in the U.S. when I was a 911 dispatcher twenty years ago. The state budget was not ratified. We were told we would be given IOUs from the state in lieu of pay and were not allowed to strike or quit! Seems they decided we were "essential employees" even though we were in the clerks union... and considered clerks... not emergency personnel. Seems like the state wanted it both ways! Thankfully the budget was finally ratified and the crisis was averted. But to say we couldn't quit even though they weren't paying us was above and beyond what I was willing to accept. I would have quit. We outlawed slavery, didn't we?

[@migrivp2672]

Postal... what a great game

[@aennaenn7468]

No we didn't outlaw slavery. It's still legal, if you're in jail or prison. Why do you think the state tries to find as many ways as possible to criminalize you?

[@jamesbullo]

If 40 hrs a week from employees isn't enough to keep the job running then it's up to the employer to hire more workers not squeeze their workers for mandatory 🙄 voluntary OT.

[@johnclements6614]

People working in construction on these remote sites want overtime. There is often little to do apart from watch Steve Lehto or TV. No wife or kids there. Come the winter there will be no work because its too cold and then they will spend time at home living off their summers pay or head south. If the company did not offer overtime no one would want to work there. Therefore the company has to plan the work around a certain amount of overtime.

[@johnclements6614]

@@amandak.4246 Same answer to the same statement. People obviously do not know what its is like to work away from home. I note you are not disputing what I have written.

[@michiganengineer8621]

Wonder how many of those scaffold workers are sending out their job applications/resumes right now? Be hilarious if they all, or at least MOST, got immediate offers. What will the company do then? Especially now that this story is out there. Speaking for myself, I'd rather work 8 hour shifts for 6 days than I would overtime after a TEN hour shift day after day.

[@buckhorncortez]

That's their option - go get another job. I'm sure replacements can be found.

[@vihtoripuurola3775]

Also depends on the contract wording. I always work on individual contracts with the word "at will" so that I can leave at any time. They can always let me go at any time as well. Unions are a whole different matter as they are members in that union, and risk that membership by acting on their own or conspiring behind the union's back.

[@michiganengineer8621]

@@vihtoripuurola3775 Agreed. If I had the misfortune to be working as a scaffolder at that site, I'd tell them fine, I'll work overtime by coming in for a 10 hour shift on _one_ of my days off. Or for 8 hours each on TWO days.

[@Grendelbc]

No. These guys have good union jobs. They don't fool around with resumes or applications. The Local Union calls them out for a job and they either accept it or turn it down.

[@NativelyBornAmerican]

Boss: work or you’ll go to jail. Employees: then I guess we won’t be working, especially from jail. 🤣🤣

[@petermartin2643]

Isn’t the company breaching the contract by forcing employees to work “voluntary” overtime. Most mines in Canada aren’t covered my WCB but by the mining Act which leans towards the company and not the workers.

[@wdwerker]

I get the impression that the company is motivating the actual miners with the promise of bonuses to increase production. But they don’t see the scaffolding crews as needing to be motivated by anything other than the agreed upon overtime pay.

[@MonkeyMind69]

Having to labor under threat of force/ punishment boils down to Slavery. The very principle of what he talks about at 13:10 is the foundation of what Unions are based on. Due to the fact there is already a union in place that had an outlined contract, I can see the courts stepping in, however I would think it would be fines (not imprisonment) towards the Union establishment, not it's members. The Union in turn could then punish /fine the union members who were not in line with the union contract. If an employee in a normal business acted against the interests of that business, you simply fire them. In the case of unions I'm sure they have similar powers towards their union members.

[@threatlevelzero]

How exactly does one differentiate between a Legal Strike and an Illegal Strike?

[@audiewilliams3417]

When I was in a union we had a theory that went something like this, don't say it just do it. They cant tell employees to stop taking overtime shifts, but if everyone stopped taking overtime shifts on their own then what could the company have done. In the next contract the company will make a hard push for mandatory overtime, so they kinda hosed themselves.

[@ttww1590]

When you go from begging for extra time and money on the same day you failed.

[@TopCat2021]

The anonymous memo may have been written by the company to strength their case against the employees

[@CrudeOilisOrganicYouKnow]

These poor guys are being taken advantage of, they only make $82.30 per hour for the first 2 hours of overtime and $109.74 per hour after that or any Saturday and Sunday work. Give them a break. How about some sympathy guys.

[@ATEAMDarkChemical]

Still. The overtime is voluntary. And there might actually be time when its so hot, that everyone is dead after their 10 hour shift and noone wants to take overtime after a workday like that. This feelis like the employer can't fill positions and is blackmailing workers to do 'voluntary' overtime. Aslo it heavy depends on the pay for overtime. Here in Europe overtime is 2x the salary when working normal time. And everyone is glad to be able to work overtime. after their 8 hour shift, if they work another 4 hours, they get twice the money per day. It is allways about money. Most of the people goes to work to make money. And I doubt someones dream job is scafolder.

[@christopherg2347]

Steve missed the core again: "Overtime is voluntary, *unless there are not enough volunteers* to get the job done."

[@420villain]

In Canada overtime starts at 1.5x only

[@Moosetick2002]

It sounds like you can refuse individually, but if it's a collective effort to gain more pay or benefits, then it's a violation of the contract and illegal. That said, I think you should just be fired for violating a contract, not put in jail.

[@mikeymaiku]

lol you know theres laws that allow workers to take 5-15 minute breaks every hour during extreme heat settings? im pretty sure unions follow that to a T. hell im not even in a union and we dont mess with that stuff. heat breaks have been in effect since the heatwave has started in bc for the past month.

[@billh.1940]

It is not always about money! Sometimes I don't want to get sick or dead, by continuing to be in a deadly environment! Some jobs it is a given that you could die, but not most jobs! I for one, wouldn't die, so bossman can get richer! If individuals acting as individuals is somehow a collective action, then we are just a beehive!

[@paulmea3166]

That letter sank them. Labor contracts normally state that the union will not collectively slow down or otherwise withhold their labor.. Now the calling up the Canadian equivalent of OSHA should begin...

[@kathyhallock2528]

Still sounds like legalized slavery to me! Employers need to watch what they're doing or people are not going to want to work for them !

[@shadmtmtn1603]

In my country (in Europe), we have what is called "right to retreat" garanteed by the law : if you deem your working conditions unsafe, you have the right to refuse to work. Of course, you should have documentation about what you say is unsafe, or it is "job abandonement" and would backfire hard ! But, if you are right, the company can't do anything to you, unlawful retaliation is severly punished. In fact, the company has only 1 smart option : bring the workplace to an acceptable level of safety. This law is used everywhere, of course, but the most the public hear about is when the public transportation in a city is completely shutdown after a driver was assaulted, and all drivers instantly use their right to retreat for the day... It is usually very effective, as Mayors don't like when half the population is stranded and pissed off because cops didn't do their jobs !!

[@TechGorilla1987]

Key facts missing from a story?? Unpossible.

[@christopherg2347]

Even Steve missed the core part: "Overtime is voluntary, *unless there are not enough volunteers* to get the job done."

[@corvettebob96]

Why ruin a good story with the facts? 3 sides to a story: Your side, their side and what really happened.

[@bruinflight]

I've worked under similarly worded contracts, one particular situation where the company won a big judgement and injunction for employees who refused to take overtime. Of course, this prolonged workers' action was initiated by posts on social media which, big surprise, became evidence submitted at trial.

[@Bobs-Wrigles5555]

Ben leaning on W8NEC tube base, Steve's LHS

[@theelephantintheroom8016]

They are doing a work to rule action, they should have that right. The Alberta government is Conservative so they are anti labor union.

[@canadiankrispybacon]

Dealing with Labour Law, more specifically within contractual language. The problem usually exists within the ee’s as they’re vocal of what their intent, and often gets them in trouble. Instead of just doing, they tell everyone WHAT they’re going to do. Refusal is generally an individual right and there are qualifiers. Collectively they can’t all in a group refuse OT, there is enough jurisprudence to stifle any such actions…they would have to show that a danger exists. IF they were smart they would stager the OT refusals, or IF someone were to say that if they were refusing OT, that if they were continue to work the employees health or the health of other ee’s would be put at risk indirectly due the employee actions then they could invoke a refusal. Once a refusal is initiated then there must be an investigation…and pending the language in their CA, then all work must stop in that specific job until the the investigation is complete. IF they’re refusing under the code, then it the bare minimum standards, the employer could ask another ee to work while they’re conducting their investigation as long as they notify the other ee that there is an investigation. However, 217.1 cc, I wouldn’t want to be the Supervisor who A. Put another ee in someone’s place and that ee was injured or B, ignored a refusal resulting in a workplace injury. There is a case in Ontario, scaffolding accident 10+ years back one Dec 24, number of ee died and the supervisor received 3.5 years in prison.

[@danamoore1788]

I am still having an issue here. It is not work 'stoppage' if they are doing their shifts. They are refusing to go above and beyond and that above and beyond is labelled as 'voluntary'. The workers will see this as we can get the attention of the bosses without causing harm by all of us simply not doing extra. Nope went to court. Do they all go to jail if they choose to quit now? That would cause a stoppage. Now this is speculation on my part since I am not there seeing what they are seeing. But in the first part of this, the overtime was mentioned as an extension of the working day as well as the weekend work. They work ten hours a day. I have worked places where the overtime was till something was finished even if that took eight to ten hours. That could be the danger they are talking about. Toss too many hours onto a long shift and it gets very dangerous. Most bosses I have met (and don't do the work) say 'Too bad, get back to work' and gripe about turnover. So the proof is hard to show in court, especially on short notice. Personally it sounds like the contract was done poorly. Work Monday to Thursday, three days off. All of these union people. Then, oh wait we work seven days a week. We need you to have people here those three days. So why didn't they split the shift so those three days had people covering and Monday or Thursday had both crews for extra work? Sounds to me like a mess all the way around.

[@SkorjOlafsen]

Based on the video, that was not ruled a work stoppage, but something lesser: a collective action to disrupt the business, which it seems is against the agreement.

[@IaIaCthulhuFtagn]

Still might get away with it being a safety issue. I can imagine tired people working overtime after already doing a 10 hr shift at a mine would make for dangerous conditions. Hell, after a 14hr shift, just driving home would be dangerous.

[@ttww1590]

It's a camp on site and they work 10-20 days straight, and regularly request/demand overtime for extra pay.

[@lonjohnson5161]

What does the contract say about voluntary overtime? Does it guarantee that a certain number of the members will accept it? If not, I don't see how this can be considered a strike.

[@Omniseed]

The story didn't really change with the 'update',, it's just a clarification of the verbiage that the court and employer are using to justify their clearly illegal mandate to perform overtime work. Whether some employees were willing to continue doing overtime with different conditions or not isn't terribly relevant

[@BlackJesus8463]

Can't make them work overtime from jail either so it's really just corporate greed at this point.

[@Omniseed]

@@BlackJesus8463 Yep, it's a capitalist power play, the threat that the workers will either do as they're told or lose their time anyway, so are they gonna earn management some bonuses or have jail food this weekend?

[@MegaLokopo]

And this is why unions are dumb. Every strike of any size should be perfectly legal in every situation. If you don't want your workers to strike talk with them, negotiate with them and treat them like they are important.