Introduction
Collective bargaining is viewed by many theorists and labour studies experts to being the most significant aspect of industrial relations emerging from nearly all legislative schemes of labour relations. According to The court.ca (2007), the Canadian Supreme Court offered constitutional protection to collective bargaining. However, in the recent past, there have been attempts at reducing the protection scope offered to collective bargaining.
In the United States, where the constitution does not offer any protection to collective bargaining, the concept of right-to-work has ended up reducing the rights of union and workers. Such attempts have also been experienced in the unfolding of events in Wisconsin. Nevertheless, Wisconsin is just one of the states that have been trying to pass legislation that illegalizes collective bargaining from workers union.
In Canada, the recent bill of the Conservative Government (C-6) vis-a-vis the dispute at Canada Post has been seen by many as a similar dismissal of the importance of collective bargaining in Canada. As a result, this paper critically analyses the Conservative Government’s return-to-work bill. In doing this, the paper looks at unions’, employers’ and government’s perspectives and analyses each of them seriously.
CUPW strike against Canada
According to CUPW (Canada Union of Postal Workers) represents Post workers in Canada; advocate for better working conditions, safety issues and the push for new employees to receive better salaries as well as pensions. These are the major issues that led to their strike. Apart from making high profits, Canada Post has been increasing the number of casual workers while reducing the number of permanent employees. In addition, retirees pay for extended health care plan had been increased by Canada Post; the sick leave plan that had been proposed by the corporation to replace the plan that was in place was deemed complicated and far much inferior.
Moreover, letter carriers were also being forced to accept delivery procedures that in one way or the other compromised their health and safety. The corporation had also introduced two-tiered payment systems under which the new employees will be receiving 30 per cent less, reduced benefits, lesser pensions along with weak job security (Psac-afpc.com, 2011).
This strike affected people and organizations adversely because consumers and businesses stopped receiving mails, and most of the facilities were closed down. The stoppage also led to the accumulation of mails from other countries and unprocessed mails in the Post systems, hence affecting communication and delivery of mails in the country (Bronski, 2011).
Back-to-work Bill
As a result of these effects and lack of any sign of reaching an agreement between Canada Post and CUPW, the Conservative Government tabled the back-to-work legislation. This happened after the workers union was locked out by Canada Post due to a series of strikes that were happening by then (Bronski, 2011).
Back-to-work bill in Canada is usually read thrice in the House of Commons and the time allocated for debate during the second reading is usually not more than two hours; less than an hour for the entire committee stage and less than 30 minutes for third reading consideration. In addition, every member is limited to 10 minutes of speaking. Nevertheless, there is neither motion for debate adjournment, nor a motion to adjourn the house from sitting is permitted when the debate is going on. The exemption of this rule occurs only when the Crown or Tories presents such a motion (Deveau, 2011).
According to Lynett, 2011 New Democratic Party (NDP) opposed the bill claiming that it was very unfair to workers. However, their motion was defeated in the house of commons as Liberals and Conservatives voted against it. On the other hand, the bill was not only being opposed by NDP members, but other senators also gave the bill a very rough ride. They questioned peppering witnesses concerning the content of this bill.
Senators like Terry Mercer explained that this was going to be an attack on other unions in public sectors. This was because the bill was going to have negative implications on those unions. However, those supporting the bill indicated that its major objective was to preserve the economy of the country. But at that moment, back-to-work legislation was of great significance as there was no way people could be kept waiting for essential services like mail services. Thus the government was going to intervene in this matter because the public interest was at stake.
According to Cbc.ca/news/canada (2011), though the CUPW strike was not affecting Canadian citizens who were using electronic mails, the government stated that as a result of the strike, it was losing a lot of dollars every week in the form of tax. This is because both large organizations and smaller organizations were being hit hard in various ways. Apart from not receiving business mails, those organizations depending on Canada Post to either make a payment or receive payment were being affected seriously. As a result, there was a need for the House of Commons to enact this bill to bring back mail services which play major roles in stabilizing the country’s economy.
However, those opposing the bill reiterated that back-to-work bill was just one of the strategies being used by the Conservative Government in breaking down the Canadian Union of Postal Workers as a champion of solving labour disputes. They even re-read the quotation made by the Prime Minister in 1997 where he stated that “ending the monopoly in the postal service will ensure that Canadians are never held hostage by another postal strike” (Cbc.ca/news/politics, 2011).
In a real sense, the back-to-work legislation gave the striking workers even a lower wage as compared to what the Post Office management had offered them. In addition, it ended up limiting an “arbitrator to choosing between the final offers — winner takes all — of the two negotiating parties on other matters” (Deveau, 2011). Apart from these implications, the legislation also provided various financial penalties to union representatives as well as individuals who might not comply with the new regulation (Corbin, 2011).
The union Vice President stated that they were going to abide by the new legislation and go back to work, not because they wanted to but just as a way of preventing any excuse that can be used by the government against them. In addition, the union was very annoyed by the new legislation claiming that it was just a way the Conservative Government was trying to intrude into labour disputes. It claimed that with the passage of this bill, there would be a war between the government, the labour unions and working individuals.
In addition, it blamed the Canada Post for adopting intransigent position after passing of back-to-work legislation. However, it promised a continual struggle for “safe work, decent jobs and pensions, in spite of this unjust and punitive bill. Fortunately, the government can’t legislate away our determination to fight for our rights” (Theglobeandmail.com, 2011).
Analysis
When all factors are put into consideration, the Conservative Government of Canada is using back-to-work legislation as a way of interfering with collective bargaining processes in the country. This is because, for less than a year, the government has failed to settle labour disputes through collective bargaining with labour unions; instead, it has been imposing back-to-work legislation. This can be exemplified by the fact that the conservative government was imposing back-to-work legislation to Canada workers who were striking due to poor working conditions and lower salary rates.
However, the union and the employer came to an agreement before the legislation was enacted (Misener, 2011). Nonetheless, in the same year, the Conservative Government of Canada used the same legislation to force Postal workers to go back to work. This implies that the Conservative Government is really entrenching labour union rights.
Though the government might not feel the pinch of forcing workers to work now, in future, the act will have a lot of implications, particularly on bargaining power. This is because most unions in future will have a mentality that they will be forced to work. Hence they will not be bargaining for better terms of employment. According to professor Hebdon, there are other methods Harper’s government could have used to gain long term gains (Rosenfeld, 2011). However, the back-to-work bill attains short-term gains, but the long term effects on bargaining will be much devastating. According to one of the CUPW vice president:
[We’re going to take an aggressive stance in the arbitration process, even though it’s a very poor way to settle issues and we’ll be coming up for bargaining in the next four years and we’re going to prepare for that round… our members are determined to keep up the fight] (Walkom, 2011).
In my view, I see the conservative Government playing political games with the matter. There have been different governments in Canada which have been handling labour union strikes in smarter ways. This can be traced after World War II. As a matter of fact, government officials like ministers should be more experienced on such matters. This is because, when the government intervenes through the back-to-work bill, the ability of workers union to negotiate is usually eliminated or adversely compromised.
In addition, this is just a clear indication that the conservative government of Canada intents to undertake tough measures on labour unions. It is very difficult to understand how the government can come up with a bill which gives an offer that is less than what the employer had already offered. It would have been understandable if the bill had offered either the same rate or even at least higher than what the employer had offered.
The implication of these activities is that in future, when an employer offers any deal, regardless of its scale (smaller or bigger), the union should accept. This is because in case the negotiations end up being fruitless, the Conservative Government of Canada will intervene, and there will be no mercy on the union side. This is because the government might offer a rate that will be lower to what the employer had offered.
However, the only concrete reason that leads to such a bill is when the country’s economy is at stake, and the public is really suffering as a result of the labour dispute (Corbin, 2011). Though at that time the Canadian public was suffering because it was not in a position to send or receive mails as well as air services, I don’t think if the country’s economy was at risk. This is because the strike was not affecting electronic mails. So individuals could still use electronic mails. However, most business activities came to a standstill in many organizations, for instance, millions of dollars could not be invoiced, or some organizations which were not employing electronic mails were not receiving cheques. Thus this was a situation calling for an emergency.
In addition, it has been argued by scholars that ‘removing workers’ right to strike also removes the leverage the unions have in the negotiations by eliminating any financial penalties for the company” (Kochan, 1980). The democratic right of striking and the issue of threatening to go on strike has been producing magic settlements in most cases. However, the Conservative Government and Canada Post management seem not to learn from history lessons that have been taking place in other parts of the world.
The process of forcing postal and other workers to work is unjust and unfair to workers. This is because, it is their democratic right to go on strike, but using back-to-work legislation denies them such democratic right (Lynett, 2011).
The politics surrounding back-to-work bills in Canada is very complicated. It is true that the Conservative Government has no mercy on unions and is also true that back-to-work legislation ordering postal workers to go back to work is also biased. However, this situation is not unique in the history of Canada. It is clear that “During their times in government, neither the Liberals nor the New Democrats have been loath to use the legislative hammer against striking or locked-out workers” (Kochan, 1980). During the Liberal’s era, the two-week postal strike was ended by government intervention.
Moreover, just like what the Conservative Government did, they also offered a lower rate as compared to what Canada Post had offered. At this time, the Conservative then called Reform party was the one complaining that the law was unjust and was not considering the needs and complains of workers. On the other hand, the New Democrats are attacking the Conservative government for imposing back-to-work rule to postal employees by airing important points.
However, in 1997 New Democrats were willing to accelerate enactment of the back-to-work bill through the House of Commons. This was particularly when the strike of grain handlers was threatening western farmers’ interests. In addition, during 1997 postal workers’ strike, the New Democratic Party supported back-to-work legislation to end the strike. That bill was just similar to this being opposed by the same party. This is because the bill also imposed similar wage settlements that the Conservative Government was imposing. However, this time around New Democrats are calling it unfair to workers.
According to Canada history, different premiers have used similar legislation to settle labour disputes. For instance, “In the 1970s and early ’80s, Saskatchewan premier Allan Blakeney enacted an end to labour disputes involving power workers, dairy workers and non-medical hospital personnel” (Peirce & Bentham, 2006). In addition, when New Democrat was in power in the early 1990s, the rights of unions representing about one million public service employees were threatened by the government; the government enacted legislation that ended up changing their contracts in Ontario. It is the same for Rae, the Federal Liberal leader who was weighing the options of delaying the back-to-work bill presented by the Conservative Government (Walkom, 2011).
Nevertheless, the most inquisitive feature concerning the approach that was used by the Conservative Government is not about the decision of enacting a bill that led to an end the postal dispute that lasted for 18 days. This is because both the New Democrats and the Liberals did the same when they were in power, “most recently in 1975, 1978, 1981, 1987 (twice) and 1997” (Walkom, 2011). Neither is it the speed with which the government introduced the bill.
This is because, in 1997, the Conservative Government, under Brian Mulroney, proposed the same legislation to end the Postal workers’ strike just after nine days of the strike. In addition, in 1997 the government intervened just after 14 days of the strike. But in a real sense, the way in which the Conservative Government reacted to the Canada strike. This is because the government intervened just after hours (Peirce & Bentham, 2006).
In a real sense, in Canada, there are other airlines operating, apart from having other means of travelling. This implies that the sector is not essential to growth of the country’s economy, apart from bringing fewer side effects to the Canadian community. This means that there was no public demand to end the strike but the government ended up reacting just after a few hours. Nonetheless, the union (Canadian Auto Workers) strike was failing.
Thus why should the government act on such an issue as if it was an issue calling for emergency? As a result, in one way or the other by enacting back-to-work Bill, the government was helping Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) by saving the union from shame. Thus, there are chances that the Conservative Government recognizes the power and the rights of labour unions.
Concerning CUPW strike, there were a lot of public demands for the government and the Canada Post management to end the strike. For instance, the Canadian mail users’ association was calling the government and Canada post to settle the labour dispute for the services to resume. In addition, the economy of the country was being threatened, as million of dollars were being lost. Putting all these factors in consideration I see that the Conservative Government even took more time to act to a situation that required rapid reaction. However, what I disagree with the Conservative Government is the issue of giving salary rates that were lower than what the employer had offered to the union.
On the other hand, by looking at the reasons of Canada Union of Postal Workers’ (CUPW) strike, I can say that they are genuine reasons. According to Misener, 2011they are fighting for poor working conditions, pensions as well as salary rates. These are some of the concerns that are affecting most Canadians in one way or the other in their respective workplaces. Though there are scholars like Kaufman & Morris, 1993 and Dunlop, 1958 who have argued that representation of employees is a very critical issue compared to representation through unions. This is because most of these unions represent their own opinions other than representing opinions of their members.
But in the case of CUPW, the facts presented were affecting its members. As a result, there is no way one can say CUPW was representing their own interests. However, Canada Post management which is their employer took advantage of what the government was doing in other sectors to set low rates to ensure that the agreement is not reached so that the government can intervene by enacting back-to-work bill. Due to the fact that the government was favouring employers in previous cases, they were having higher chances of being favoured hence, emerging as winners.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to state that both the government, Canada Post and the Workers Union tried their best to end the strike. However, it is not the responsibility of the government to intervene labour in disputes, unless the issue is affecting the country’s economy or due to public demand. In this case, though there was public demand and the economy was being affected though not to a large extend, the government’s intervention was of great help.
However the government should not have offer a lower salary rate compared to what the employer has offered. In addition, the frequency of back-to-work bills should not be as high as it is in Canada. In less than a month, two bills were brought up this is not right and the government should start looking for better methods of settling labour disputes. In addition, the employer should play his or her role right to prevent work stoppages that usually affects the country’s economy.
Lastly, workers don’t join unions for nothing they usually incur a lot of expenses to ensure that their unions are representing them well and for that matter unions should be given a chance to represent their members effectively, in fact it brings in the issue of check and balances.
References
Bronski, M. (2011). Canada Post: Back To Work Bill Approved By Senate, Becomes Law; Mail Should Resume Tuesday. The Canadian Press. Web.
Cbc.ca/news/canada. (2011). Conservatives table Canada Post back-to-work bill. CBC News. Web.
Cbc.ca/news/politics. (2011). Canada Post promises mail delivery Tuesday. CBC News. Web.
Corbin, K. (2011). Postal Service to Resume in Canada as Back-to-Work Law Passes. Web.
Deveau, S. (2011). Tories to speed Air Canada back-to-work bill through House. Web.
Dunlop, J. (1958). Industrial Relations Systems. New York: Holt-Dryden.
Kaufman, B. & Morris, K. (1993). Employee Representation: Alternatives and Future Directions. Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association.
Kochan, A. (1980). Collective Bargaining and Industrial Relations: From Theory to Policy to Practice. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Lynett, A. (2011). Postal union launches court challenge to eliminate back-to-work legislation. Web.
Misener, K. (2011). Air Canada customer service staff returns to work. The Canadian Press. Web.
Peirce, J. & Bentham, J. (2006). Canadian Industrial Relations. Ontario: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Psac-afpc.com. (2011). Members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have begun rotating strikes against Canada Post. Web.
Rosenfeld, H. (2011). Making Sense of the Federal Election in Canada. Web.
Thecourt.ca. (2007). Archive for Entries on Health Services. Web.
Theglobeandmail.com. (2011). Postal back-to-work bill becomes law; mail could resume Tuesday. The Canadian Press. Web.
Walkom, T. (2011). Everyone wins with back-to-work bill, except Canada Post workers. Web.