Notes
Key populations
Union officials, TFWs, employers, government officials and TFW advocates
Key findings
This paper explores the relationship between unions and temporary foreign worker (TFWs) — specifically how union members react to TFWs and how their reaction, in turn, influences the attitude of TFWs towards unions. The results show three types of union responses with their underlying influences: (1) resistive response, which stems from unions’ unwillingness to advocate for TFWs as a part of the union membership and to acknolwedge thier economic vulnerabilities; (2) facilitative response, which is indicated by unions assisting emplyers to hire TFWs even if TFWs are viewed undesirable. This is a strategically advantageous response for unions because cooperation with the employer ‘maintains a steady labour supply to keep projects moving and members employed’; (3) and active response, which is marked by genuine efforts by unions to confront employers and advocate for TFWs’ vulnerability and unique legal status.
Gaps identified
“Each of the three types of response found in this study had advantages and disadvantages. Resistive strategies built upon existing union identities to shore up solidarity among existing union members, at the expense of TFWs. The facilitative approach ensured a minimal degree of disruption and conflict in the workplace but at the cost of the union forgoing its capacity to challenge the employer’s agenda. Finally, active responses might be effective at representing and advocating on behalf of TFWs but ran the risk of angering the employer, producing consequences in other areas” (p. 423).
Community organizations
United Nurses of Alberta (UNA); Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE); United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, Local 488 (UA); Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC); United Food and Commercial worker Local 1118 (UFCW)
Integration timeline
At what point during the integration process the study was conducted?
NA
ISBN: 0950-0170
