Posted at 2:00 p.m.
In an open letter published on November 4, the union representatives portray the employers, “the bosses”, without any consideration. Worse, they borrow a caricatural tone and, let’s not be afraid of words, at the limit of a trial of intent as the main argument base to defend their corporatist position to train the next health and safety representatives (RSS), planned over there Act to modernize the occupational health and safety system (LMRSST).
Before setting the record straight, here are some examples of the narrative used to describe employers and make their case:
- “Employers see the HSR (health and safety representative) as someone who slows down the work on the site and, for them, this is synonymous with loss of money. For us, that means lives saved. »
- “For all the workers who died working for these bosses, it’s already too late. »
Once again, this union thinking recovers the tragedies that are accidents at work and uses them to delegitimize the slightest employer demand, even the most legitimate concerning the application of the new health and safety reform at work.
It is wrong to say that employers have no interest in the health and safety of their workers. Let’s get to the bottom of the contentious issues.
First, employers’ associations in the construction sector have expressed their fears about the lack of training for the RSS who will have to be on construction sites from 1er January 2023.
However, although employers should ensure that they have RSS on site, the training will not be available on time. This is where the request for additional time is made. It aims to land the reform, its application and its success.
But the union party expresses its understanding of the request as follows: “It is ironic all the same to claim that improving the prevention of accidents at work will constitute a disaster! The real disaster is the toll of deaths and occupational injuries in construction. »
With such rhetoric, is it even possible to have a constructive dialogue on such simple elements? These trials of intention do not require additional comments.
Inflexibility
Now let’s talk about the union’s total inflexibility in accepting that the training of the RSS be provided by neutral bodies. Currently, mandatory first aid training in the workplace is offered by several organizations recognized by the CNESST and no union is included. But why this intransigence? Is the granting of a trade union monopoly on the training offer of the RSS based on any objective quality of the said training? Any added value in terms of teaching? What are the reasons why trade unions would exclusively provide health and safety training? With such inflexibility, there is also reason to wonder if the union party really wants to land this reform.
Employers are committed to occupational health and safety: in 2017, a survey2 the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) reported that 99% of small business owners say the health and safety of their employees is important to them; 99%! However, in order to support their arguments, the unions associate the employer’s demand for a neutral body for a training offer with a refusal of prevention in the workplace… There is no need to talk at length about the demagogic content of this type of statement.
We want to land this reform positively, and to do this, it is necessary to get out of union corporatism and to hear the legitimate concerns of employers.
We must continue to involve the workplaces and not launch into a confrontation that is harmful and counterproductive for collective mobilization. Ensuring that the training is offered by a neutral organization goes in this direction and is a guarantee of success.
It is time for certain trade union associations to stop living in a past that has nothing to do with today’s reality and to demonize employers by using real dramas for demagogic purposes. It is time to work as a team for a successful reform in the interest of all. Social dialogue has shown in the past that it could work, so why not take inspiration from it?
2. Source: CFIB, Labor standards and HR survey in Quebec 2017, web, August 24 to September 8, 2017, 727 respondents, margin of error of 3.6%, 19 times out of 20