Strikes
have been an important factor in Canadian history, particularly with the
Winnipeg General Strike in 1919, which saw approximately 30,000 Canadians walk
off the job. It began as various industries attempted to negotiate a wage
increase with the city. Instead, City Council refused the wage increase and went
on to disallow workers from striking, which only further exacerbated the
conflict. The Winnipeg General Strike included many civic unions, but also
employees in both the private and public sectors – and as a result of their
strike, they set the stage for future Canadian labour negotiations.
As
of late, however, it seems as though the Canadian government is trying once
again to take away the worker’s right to strike – particularly if they work in
a sector that is of importance to the “Canadian public”, such as air
transportation.
At
a recent press conference, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that Air Canada
employees needed to come to an agreement with their employer without impacting
the Canadian public by striking.
“My
concern is not management or labour, my concern is the broader Canadian public,
and I think the broader Canadian public overwhelmingly expects the government
to act,” Harper said at an event at Toronto’s Billy Bishop airport.
It
is with this sentiment that Harper is justifying Bill C-33, the “Protecting Air
Service Act”, which will forbid the employer (Air Canada) from locking out its
employees, and its employees from striking. It will also call for an arbitrator
to provide a final offer selection. The concerning thing about a final offer is
that both sides state the reasons for their requests, and the arbitrator chooses one case over another
to create a new agreement.
The
Act was rushed through Parliament and was passed on Mar. 15 – a mere three days
after it was first introduced in the House of Commons. This type of reactionary
legislation is particularly awful because it never looks at the bigger picture.
Laws should be made because they hold true for a plethora of situations, and
will stand the tests of time as a result of significant debate; laws should be
made to last.
Air
Canada was planning on locking out their employees at the same time that the
employees, including 8,600 mechanics, baggage handlers and other ground crew,
and 3,000 pilots, were planning on striking. “We’re not saying the employer is
correct and we’re not saying the union is correct,” said Labour Minister Lisa
Raitt, in Ottawa. “What we’re saying is the Canadian public is caught in this
and we’re going to act because of them.”
What
we have to realize, however, is that inconvenience is not an excuse to prevent
a group of people from continuing negotiations, including going on strike if
necessary. People don’t go on strike because it’s a fun thing to do, or because
it’s a pseudo-vacation. They go on strike because they believe they deserve
better – because we all deserve better. We deserve to work in conditions that
are healthy and safe, and to be paid for our labour with wages that allow us to
live comfortably. We are justified in our desire to be respected members of
Canada’s labour force.
Among
those who identify as right-wingers, unions often have a bad reputation. They
are known for causing havoc, allegedly harming the economy, and impeding
society’s ability to carry on with business as usual. What seems to be the
lesser-known perspective is that unions also advocate for fairer wages, and
help to ensure that working conditions are safe and just. They also work to
guarantee good benefits like health and dental, and ensure wages increase with
inflation.
Certainly,
unions are the only bodies you ever hear about in relation to strikes. They
strike because they have the strength to – their numbers are greater, and when
their members work together, they can advocate for a cause and have the chance
for a legitimate discussion without intimidation from those in positions of
power threatening their job security.
“It’s
a sad day for any federally-regulated worker in Canada because this legislation
says you do not have the right to strike, period,” Dave Ritchie, head of the
Canadian branch of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
workers, told the CBC upon Bill C-33 passing. “This will undermine free
collective bargaining and poison labour relations across Canada.”
In
Feb. 2012, Statistics Canada reported that 4,570,000 Canadians were either a
member of a labour union or covered by a union contract or collective
agreement. The average hourly wage for these members is $26.86; those who are
not covered by a union have an average hourly wage of $21.99.
When
the Conservative government argues that they are enacting legislation against
striking for the benefit of Canadians, this justification does not ring true.
Although your initial reaction may be relief that your flight is not cancelled,
in the long run, this legislation will have a negative impact on Canada. By
passing this bill, the government is making it okay for a governing body to
legislate in matters that are typically restricted to the employer and the
union. They are instilling fear, and setting a precedent that if a contract
negotiation is not going well, there is no reason to strike because the
government will simply intervene (we see this happening repeatedly in B.C.
whenever the teachers’ employment contract comes up for negotiation).
Harper
has also said that “the position of Air Canada is different,” and that the bill
was only proposed because Air Canada is “the largest airline in the country and
a shutdown of service … would have significant impact not only on airline
service to Canadians, but on the transportation system as a whole, and
potentially on the economy.”
What
is overlooked is that unions, too, can benefit the economy. By fighting for
secure jobs with fair wages, unions are ensuring that people are comfortable
and safe in their employment. As a result, people will have extra money that
they can recycle back into the economy by buying more goods and services. In
fact, the World Bank released a statement saying unions are good for the
economy, because they result in lower unemployment and inflation, higher
productivity, and speedier recovery from economic shocks.
Just
because something is inconvenient doesn’t mean that we should implement
legislation to stop it from happening. Canadians have a right to speak up about
their concerns and be heard without it instantly being made illegal. This
legislation is actively trying to limit the rights of employees to advocate for
fairness and taking away any chance they had to negotiate a better contract.
When
we allow the government to intervene in this manner, to make reactionary
legislation that is being implemented only because something would be
inconvenient for the economy, we are allowing them to take over and think on
our behalf – and too often with this government, what is best for Canadians has
been overlooked for what is, supposedly, best for the economy. Time and time
again, however, we have seen that this not true, because other, more important
things have been sacrificed instead. We must speak up and let Harper know that
this kind of rushed legislation is unacceptable.
//Samantha Thompson, editor-in-chief
//Samantha Thompson, editor-in-chief
|
