Discussion of Flexible Work for Retail Grocery Workers in Ontario

The distribution of time and hours within the workplace has been one of the most contentious areas of struggle between workers and employers (Gibbs 2006). Stakeholder theory suggests a broader understanding of management’s practices towards this issue (Godard 2000:178-9). This theory argues that workers and employers both share similar social and economic interest in creating broader stability with their workplace. For example, if the employer faced negative business conditions then workers need to increase their flexibility to accommodate their employer, through this down turn. On the other hand, if the worker’s family responsibilities increased then the employer is to accommodate these needs by reducing the demands of the employment contract until these workers are able to adjust to the changes with their family responsibilities. Unfortunately, such arrangements are dependant on a shared balance of power between workers and employers.
In Canada, a high percentage of women tend to have occupations within the peripheral sector. Statistics Canada Report on Women in Canada suggests, “Women have accounted for about 7 in 10 of all part time employees since the late 1970’s” (Statistics Canada report on Women in Canada 2003:8). These workers tend to work part time, for low wages, and experience high levels of managerial authority. These job characteristics are frequently associated with workers in the unionized retail grocery sector. As a result, flexible schedules may appeal to the workers who have to balance their family responsibilities and precarious work arrangements.
Employers have become increasingly concerned over their worker’s ability to manage their work and family responsibilities. Many employers have developed workplace policy to accommodate the growing family demands on their workers. For example, employers offer time off, sick days, leave of absence, flexible scheduling, daycare, and drug plans. However, Diane Houston and Julie Waumsley suggest that workers are reluctant to use or even know about such flexible work arrangements designed to help them balance their work and family responsibilities (Houston and Waumsley 2003). Moreover, they argued that the unionized workers they researched were not willing to use flexible work arrangements for fear of economic damaging to their employer. These workers responded that, if they used flexible work arrangements their overtime and their ability to advance in the company would suffer (Houston and Waumsley 2003:44). It is clear the employer’s use of flexible work arrangements has not been living up to its intentions. Workers have become dependant on overtime, and fearful of employer retaliation if they use flexible work arrangements.
Union structures may be able to help workers deal with the additional stress and demands of their work-life balance. First, researchers need to question if unions are able to balance the unequal relationship in power within the employment contract. The union’s use of collective bargaining has proven to be an effective tool for representing the interests of workers to their employer. For example, unions have fought for limits on overtime, paid/unpaid personal days, leaves of absences, or extended benefits to family members living in the same house (Houston and Waumsley 2003). It is clear that work-family benefits do have a significant cost on employers. However, these benefits can increase production and lower turnover.
John Budd and Karen Mumford’s research of, “Trade Unions and Family-Friendly Policies in Britain” suggested that unions were effective in bargaining for additional benefits, providing workers with information, and assisting in their member’s use of such benefits (Budd and Mumford 2004:204). However, they concluded that unions are negatively associated with flexible work arrangements such as scheduling. They suggested that further research is needed to examine if this negative association that exist for unions maybe the result of unions leaders or membership preferences (Budd and Mumford 2004:220).
Workplace culture can be a method in measuring the preferences of union leaders and their memberships towards the issue of flexible schedules within the workplace. Habermas suggests, that tradition, social constraints, external sources of information, and communication will directly influence workplace culture (Habermas 1971:313). These factors will identify what knowledge and human interests is to be part of the core set of values and beliefs for the workplace (Habermas 1971:313). By comparing what the union membership’s experiences and attitudes with flexible schedules, to that of the intentions of the union leadership, researchers can measure the effectiveness of flexible schedules.

The effectiveness of a flexible work arrangement is dependent on an individual’s bargaining power, knowledge of the benefits, and ability to use such benefits. In addition, unions are effective in representing the interest of minority groups by incorporating its social movement function into collective bargaining (Godard 2000:208). On the other hand, when employers and unions found explore their own self-interest they hinder a workers ability to exercise flexible work arrangements. The Canadian government’s report on Work and Family Provisions in Canadian Collective Agreements suggests that further research is needed to understand the underlying processes in which unions and employers negotiate their collective contracts (Work and Family Provisions in Canadian Collective Agreements 2002). A closer examination of the preferences of union leaders or the membership may help in identifying why unions are negatively associated towards flexible work arrangements such as flexible scheduling. Further research may help in the greater understanding of why unions within the retail sector are not adequately representing women’s interest for greater flexibility within their workplace.
Jan Kainer suggests that the retail grocery commitment to business unionism has hindered the ability of their membership to move their narrow economic interest to broader social goals (Kainer 2002:143). Business unionist philosophy involves, “a conservative approach to union operators, directed primarily at protecting and advancing the immediate economic interests of union members rather than seeking broader economic or social reforms” (Godard 2000:496). Restructuring and reorganization within the retail grocery sector have made it difficult for unions in this sector to continue to represent the narrow economic interest of their membership. In order for unions to expand on the economic and social interests of their membership, unions need to focus on their social movement function. “This fledgling focus on social movement unionism can be a tool used to rebuild unions’ capacity to resist neo-liberalism” (Moody in: Crow and Albo: 2003). Therefore, not only can social movement unionism expand the ability of unions to represent their membership, they can also reinvent unions to resist the pressures of neo-liberalism.