Explain Why Employment Legislation Covering a Broad Spectrum of Workers,not

Question

Examlex · Accepted Answer

The Answer is suggested.As was noted in earlier chapters of the book, only about one- third of all Canadian workers belong to unions. Many of those who don't have no realistic chance of ever joining one, and a fair number are legally excluded from unionization rights. Considerations of fundamental equity suggest that such workers should have some basic protections such as the right to a safe workplace), as well as unionized workers.

It's also worth noting that certain types of workplace issues, particularly human rights and health and safety ones, may be inherently difficult to regulate using collective bargaining alone. As was pointed out in Chapter 9, much collective bargaining is based on the notion of a settlement zone, or range of overlap between union and management positions. Inherent in the notion of a settlement zone is the possibility of some kind of compromise, which in turn strongly suggests that the issue in question can be divided so that the parties can "split the difference" in some way or another. There is little realistic basis for compromise on issues of fundamental principle such as those concerned with sexual, racial, or religious harassment. How, exactly, would one go about "splitting the difference" here? Therefore, at a minimum, collective bargaining over such issues needs to be supplemented by legislation or some other process which applies to all workers.

It should also be noted that collective bargaining is, by definition, a majoritarian political process. A union made up mainly of men might decide that wages and benefits were more important than a sexual harassment provision, and vote to have their negotiators pursue the former at the possible expense of the latter. Yet another concern is that what's gained at the bargaining table can also be lost there. Once again, a largely male- dominated union, forced to choose between dropping a sexual harassment provision or a reduction in wages and benefits, might well opt for the former. While the minority female membership might not think much of their "brothers'" concept of solidarity, under current labour relations legislation they would have little if any recourse, assuming collective bargaining were the only method through which harassment issues could be addressed.

With human rights legislation in place, the possibility of problems such as those just mentioned is significantly reduced. Another benefit is that human rights issues are typically handled by a specialized body, such as a human rights commission, whose staff are often far more expert in these areas than union officials, many of whom have neither the time nor the resources to become experts in such a specialized area.

Explain Why Employment Legislation Covering a Broad Spectrum of Workers,not

Definitions: