Union Busting by Censorship

July 25, 2005 8:05 AM

Canadian phone companyand ISP, Telus, has blocked access to the website of the striking union. Here's what Telus, the phone company/ISP, has to say.
posted by theora55 (35 comments total)

Encouraging people to clog phone lines and promote a bad image to a company will cause that company to lose business and money. How then will that company pay the higher wages? By blocking the website, Telus is helping the workers not destroy their place of employment.

When I got paid crap at the mall store, I didn't burn down the mall to get more money for working there.
posted by cleverusername at 8:37 AM on July 25, 2005

Telus are bastards to work for, I know people who have worked there and their standard treatment of employees in some departments can best be described as abusive and possibly illegal. That said, the unions out west have been bastards too, deliberately throwing wrenches in the works and disturbing shit whenever possible. On the other hand, four years without a settlement? I begin to feel more sympathy for them.
posted by Billegible at 8:38 AM on July 25, 2005

Also on Slashdot...

When I first saw this story, I thought it was a pretty lowdown thing for the company to do. The details of the situation make it a little unclear, however.

"...the company said the site suggested striking workers jam Telus phone lines, and posted pictures of employees crossing the union picket lines." (from the CBC article)

Harassment of those workers who decide to cross the picket lines has always seemed morally questionable; if that's what the site was calling for, it's no longer clear that the phone company is wrong to take down the site.

On preview: Four years is a goddamn long time.
posted by voltairemodern at 8:39 AM on July 25, 2005

When you cross the picket line, you do so at some risk.
posted by caddis at 8:47 AM on July 25, 2005

if that's what the site was calling for, it's no longer clear that the phone company is wrong to take down the site.

I think TELUS would be perfectly within it's rights to not host the site, if that's what this was about.

In fact, TELUS is not hosting the site and is blocking access to anyone who subscribes to their internet service. Whether or not the union site has merit, I find it troubling that the company can decide how much of the web paying customers are allowed to see.
posted by mazola at 9:15 AM on July 25, 2005

When you cross the picket line, you do so at some risk.

A risk that was better suited to the 1920's, and is bad enough without thugs posting pictures of you to encourage further abuse. If that's what they're doing, forget blocking the website, they should get the cops involved to punish harassment and inciting violence.
posted by loquax at 9:17 AM on July 25, 2005

By blocking the website, Telus is helping the workers not destroy their place of employment.

Bullshit. The website -- and the calls to phone the company, etc -- are meant to do the same thing that the strike does: Cause the company some moderate, short-term economic and marketing pain in order to improve the union's bargaining power at the negotiating table.

I was locked-out for four months by my former employer and I can assure you that it was not a good time. Nor did any of us want to cause the corp any long-term pain; in fact, we thought that a lot of things we were calling for would help the corp in the long run.

Asking customers to register their displeasure with Telus is a comparatively moderate tactic -- and I'm sure no more destructive to Telus' long-term survival than the bed press they are getting for blocking the union's website.
posted by docgonzo at 9:18 AM on July 25, 2005

Accepting the idea that you scab at risk, caddis, if Telus doesn't block access to a website which targets their employees for "risk" wouldn't that make them partly liable (provided they have the ability to lock down the site) for any "risk" which might befall their employees?
posted by FYKshun at 9:21 AM on July 25, 2005

(Er, "bad press".)
posted by docgonzo at 9:21 AM on July 25, 2005

Telus is preventing its subscribers and downstream ISP providers from accessing two pro-union web sites not hosted by Telus.

Whatever Telus's justifications, however valid their concerns, they had other, better means at their disposal. Legal injunctions, for example. This was vigilantism, pure and simple: doing it because they could. The sites are still there, complete with the content that Telus is concerned about.

This stupidly short sighted. They'll ban pro-union sites, but not, say, pro-NAMBLA or pro-Al Qaeda sites? Sometimes the slippery-slope argument is the right one.

Kind of shoots down the common-carrier defence for ISPs, doesn't it, if they block sites they don't like.

What next: blocking access to competitors' sites?

Stupid, stupid, stupid. This is blowing up in their faces. Fire whoever came up with this one, Telus.
posted by mcwetboy at 9:24 AM on July 25, 2005

I hate Telus. To other people, it is Wal-Mart or McDonalds or whatever, but for me, it is Telus.

Be it for their unfair, and as someone pointed out above, sometimes abusive treatment of employees, or their anti-competition measures and lack of customer service. I went wireless simply to avoid dealing with them.
posted by Quartermass at 9:25 AM on July 25, 2005

I would propose that someone who is a Telus customer sue Telus after they visit a questionably legal site.

Obviously if Telus was a simple "route" to websites, then they'd have no liability, but now that Telus has shown itself to be in the business of screening content, it seems that it would be possible to hold them responsible for everything else on the internet they didn't censor.

Whether the union sites are posting illegal or threatening material is the responsibility of law enforcement. If Telus had a concern, they should have contacted the police.
posted by aubin at 9:41 AM on July 25, 2005

Both sides are idiots.

I've got a friend who started in the union then went into management at Telus in BC. He's told a number of stories how both sides don't give a rat's ass about the other. The Telus CEO is trying to break the union and pay eventually succeed. Hard ass tactics like this are not all that surprising right now.

The union on the other hand has now purposefully cut 3 lines, cutting off phone service for hundred, if not thousands, of customers. That's behaviour that's not likely to engender public support for their cause. It would serve them right if someone couldn't dial 911 and they became culpable in a murder case.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:41 AM on July 25, 2005

BTW, I've already posted my complaint to the CRTC on their censoring. I hope they pay harsh penalties for that.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:42 AM on July 25, 2005

So if they're deciding what their customers can see and what they can't, does that mean that they're not a common carrier any more? And that they can be held accountable for what they choose to make available to their customers by, for example, copyright holders, or victims of web-libel?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:54 AM on July 25, 2005

Or, what aubin said.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:55 AM on July 25, 2005

All those questioning common-carrier status, please remember Telus is a Canadian company, different laws and legal precedents exist there...while there may be a common-carrier concept in CA-legal, I doubt it's the same as the US, since CA is closer to British-style legalism AFAIK....
posted by nomisxid at 10:05 AM on July 25, 2005

Its very interesting - this comes at a time when unions are increasingly losing power. One example after another existst: The recent SF Chronicle agreement when the union had to agree to lay-off 120 workers as part of their contract; The recent AFL-CIO split. This has huge implications for politics as it seems the era of labor is over. Only 12 percent jobs are now unionized. Everything has its era. The age of big labor seems to be over. What I wonder is what comes next?
posted by zia at 10:06 AM on July 25, 2005

Kickstart70, according to the CRTC website, they are not responsible for regulating ISPs: From their website:...the Commission does not regulate the rates, quality of service or business practices for Internet Service Providers and cannot pursue complaints on these matters on your behalf.

The crazy thing about this censorship is that a lot of non-Telus customers are also blocked. Since Telus is one of the big internet providers in BC and Alberta, a lot of smaller ISPs have found themselves blocked.

I live in Prince Rupert, I am not a Telus customer, and Telus does not serve my city. Yet I am blocked. The local company, Citytel, is connected to the rest of the world through Telus.

Here's a self-link post about Citytel being censored by Telus. Also, local Prince Rupert forum discussing the block (again, self-link, hope that's ok).

BTW, Prince Rupert's Citytel is one of the few independent phone companies in Canada. 100% owned by the small BC city.
posted by MiG at 10:08 AM on July 25, 2005

MiG: Thanks, I didn't know that. Well, I hope that someone has -some- minor control over this anyway.

On the other side, I'm in Richmond and have Telus ADSL for Business here at work and I can get to the site. The blockages seem to be rather sporadic, since I've heard other areas also have no problem getting to it.
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:17 AM on July 25, 2005

Scratch that....Voices for Change is blocked for me. The union site is not.
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:19 AM on July 25, 2005

I'm on an ADSL line in Vancouver and I can't get to it, either.
posted by ori at 10:24 AM on July 25, 2005

Wow. An amazing demonstration of how painfully stupid phone companies can be, and how effective censorship can be as a form of anti-marketing. Between the TV news and the Internet chatter, ten million people who had no opinion of Telus yesterday now despise them.
posted by sfenders at 10:38 AM on July 25, 2005

"A risk that was better suited to the 1920's, and is bad enough without thugs posting pictures of you to encourage further abuse. If that's what they're doing, forget blocking the website, they should get the cops involved to punish harassment and inciting violence."

Here, here. Union strong-arm tactics are bullshit. In my union experience (and I would suspect that this is the norm) you pay their extortion fees (there is no way out), you are not given an accept option when voting on contracts (there is only a no line) and are harassed for wilfully denying to sign their cards or join their pickets. Union's, while needed 40+ years ago, are becoming less and less relevant, and tactics like this will not exactly help their cause. They need a good slap.

</angst>

That being said, Telus should be slapped just as hard for censorship. That is also not appropriate in any way.
posted by purephase at 10:45 AM on July 25, 2005

I don't know, but I fear, the next step in the cycle after Unions is more Wal-Mart type employee relations. WTO/NAFTA may have some lofty ideals but the practice has me concerned about labor issues in the long run.
posted by edgeways at 10:59 AM on July 25, 2005

Self-link call to action.

The person on the other end was absolutely clueless. She did not understand that Telus' actions hurt Telus itself. If this issue is not resolved within days, I am going to cancel all my Telus accounts for life.

I completely understand that the website in question is doing the wrong thing. That does not excuse Telus' actions. Telus is restricting my ability to access information of interest to me. I do not believe for one moment that they have that right. As a consumer, I will not put up with it.

The correct way of dealing with the situation would have been for Telus' to get a court order against the operators of the website, forcing them to remove the disputed information without interfering with my access to the entirety of the web.

Please spend a buck, and give the Executive a piece of your mind.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:03 AM on July 25, 2005

Everything has its era. The age of big labor seems to be over. What I wonder is what comes next?

Next comes getting thoroughly screwed to the wall by the employer. As unions decline, wages will drop, benefits will drop, job security will drop, job safety will drop, overtime pay will disappear, vacation scheduling will be fubared, and so on.

After the pendulum swings back to Industrial Age working conditions, unionism will become necessary once again to achieve a balance of power between employer and employees.

Giving up on unionism is the stupidest mistake the working class has ever made.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:21 AM on July 25, 2005

The person on the other end was absolutely clueless. She did not understand that Telus' actions hurt Telus itself. If this issue is not resolved within days, I am going to cancel all my Telus accounts for life.

One of the reason Telus gets away with murder out west is that they are a monopoly - while you might be able to swear off Telus and still get internet, most of the people out west have no other choice; same for cell phones there. So you end up with them giving the most godwful treatment and service to their customers and still raking in the bucks.
posted by Billegible at 12:43 PM on July 25, 2005

zia writes "This has huge implications for politics as it seems the era of labor is over. Only 12 percent jobs are now unionized. Everything has its era. The age of big labor seems to be over. What I wonder is what comes next?"

As the boomers retire there is going to be more and more demand for employees at the bottom end of the scale pushing up wages and benifts across the board. It's starting around here already, ask anyone in management in retail/hospitality areas. I was talking to the food serices manager for one of the big resorts in BC last week and she was complaining that they are having a hard time getting people. Heck the 7/11s around here are advertising $2 over minimum wage for day time positions and a 12% shift differential. This will reduce the power of unions to gain members in new and existing employers.
posted by Mitheral at 1:12 PM on July 25, 2005

solidarity forever.....
posted by Edible Energy at 4:59 PM on July 25, 2005

Kickstart70 says:

"The union on the other hand has now purposefully cut 3 lines, cutting off phone service for hundred, if not thousands, of customers."

There is no evidence to tie this vandalism to the union. One of the lines was cut with an axe -- what telephone professional would use an axe to sever a line? More likely someone wanting to steal the copper from the lines to sell for money.

BTW, to shed light on the "photographing managers crossing picket lines" stuff, yes I am a union employee of Telus. Since day one of the lockout 4 days ago, security guards have been videotaping and photographing us walking the picket lines all day and night, particularly when vehicles or people cross our line.

So in retaliation, we (including myself) are photographing as many of the people crossing the picket line as we feel like. Some of the crossers don't like it, but you're free to photograph someone in a public place.

A few of the pictures were posted on "Voices for Change," but as the webmaster said, if he had been contacted by Telus, he may have taken them down if he believed their safety was in danger.

Outright censorship of the site, which has existed for over 4 years and only in the last few days posted about two little sets of pictures of people crossing the lines.

I don't intend to use the photos for anything, simply a retaliation tactic, but the company's filming me 24/7, why can't I photograph them?

Telus has followed up on it's banning of the website by further banning e-mails sent from the website as well. In short, they think they are above the law.
posted by F4B2 at 8:52 PM on July 25, 2005

One of the reason Telus gets away with murder out west is that they are a monopoly - while you might be able to swear off Telus and still get internet, most of the people out west have no other choice; same for cell phones there.

That's the situation with Rogers, here. A necessary evil. And SO evil, I wouldn't know where to friggin begin...
posted by dreamsign at 8:56 PM on July 25, 2005

One of the reason Telus gets away with murder out west is that they are a monopoly .

That's the situation with Rogers, here.

Much as I dislike both of those companies, in Ontario at least, Rogers is not a monopoly. There's Bell, Telus, Fido (recently bought by Rogers), Virgin (for mobile phones), and Sprint )for home phone service). Not exactly the best competitive environment, but not a monopoly either.

I don't intend to use the photos for anything, simply a retaliation tactic, but the company's filming me 24/7, why can't I photograph them?

Maybe you don't, but having seen how reasonable people I knew acted towards provincial government employee picket crossers in the last strike disgusted me. Threats, vandalized cars and property, intimidation (especially on the part of the jail guards), and actual physical violence. All because the scabs are hurting solidarity or some such nonsense. You want to belong to a union? Fine. You want to go on strike? Fine. But intimidating fellow human beings (and photographing them entering the building is intimidation, whether you like it or not) is absolutely repugnant. Especially when you consider that it's over a 2% pay increase, or 5% or whatever. The company isn't filming you so that they can smash your car windows later. If I were crossing, I wouldn't know what to think about you doing it.
posted by loquax at 9:49 PM on July 25, 2005

It's about a lot more than a pay increase, dude.

I'm not a Telus employee, but I've been a Telus customer all my life.

That is about to change. I will not tolerate my ISP blocking me from sites.

If anyone knows of a class-action suit or a suit that demands Telus block, say, Google, I'd like to know. I'm in like Flynn.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:15 AM on July 26, 2005

what five fresh fish said.
about unions, i mean.
posted by poweredbybeard at 7:59 PM on July 26, 2005