Image By: Wade Kelly (Flickr)
Last year, labour minister Lisa Raitt forestalled several attempts at strike action by employees at Air Canada. To do this, she had their jobs reclassified as “essential services,” and thus prevented labour action in the name of public safety. Back in mid-March, the B.C. government acted in a similar manner, enacting Bill 22, which forced members of the B.C. Teachers’ Federation to return to work, and prevented them from enacting any further walkouts. Even more recently, the House of Commons pushed through a piece of legislation to end a Canadian Pacific Railway workers’ strike.
These are separate incidents, but they point to a disturbing trend of government interference in labour disputes, both in cases where the government is legislating its own employees back to work, and in cases where the workers are employed by businesses outside direct government control.
When the government passes laws to force its own employees back to work, they bypass the negotiation process. We can use the teachers’ strike as an example as to how this dynamic plays out. When negotiation hit a stumbling block, like when the provincial government refused to budge from its net-zero negotiation policy and the teachers refused to accept it, the teachers considered going on strike. The government quickly tabled legislation that forced teachers back to work, with no possibility of labour action for at least six months, and imposed a mediator (chosen by the government) to resolve the dispute. This illustrates a fundamental disregard for the entire concept of negotiation, where both sides are supposed to meet on relatively even ground and come to an agreement by allowing certain concessions to the other side. The workers have the power to strike, and the employer has the power to sit and wait as the workers slowly run out of money. A prolonged strike is not good for either party, but it may encourage both sides to reach an agreement.
It is also problematic when the government involves itself in a private corporation’s labour dispute. Contract negotiations are meant to take place between the employer and the employees. A third party may be brought in after negotiations break down and no agreement is in sight, but government interference is only excused in cases where the average citizen is put in significant danger or hardship due to the labour action. This was not the case for the Air Canada strike. Though inconvenient for a great number of people, Air Canada workers simply refusing to work would not be devastating for Canadians. Legislation in the company’s favour only serves to create a larger power imbalance, removing the workers’ only source of bargaining power.
The government is doing itself no favours. The public isn’t outraged that public servants or Air Canada baggage handlers are being forced back to work, since these aren’t popular groups to begin with. The teachers are either more or less sympathetic, often depending on where you stand on the political spectrum. But these aren’t the only contracts coming up for renegotiation. What’s going to happen when workers whose jobs genuinely are essential and who tend to get better press, such as nurses, have to renegotiate a contract? Will the threat of legislation make them more likely to quickly agree with government proposals? Or will it make them feel like heroes for defying them? Only time will tell.
