The Balancing Act

Those of you in the Federal Sector (i.e. covered by the Canada Labour Code*) will be (should be??) aware of a little thing called Bill C257 passing through the bowels of our legislative branch.

If you're not aware of this "little thing," let me recap: it is a private members bill. That survived second reading. It is now in the "committee" process, specifically in front of HUMA, which deals with various human resources/labour-related issues. It is perilously (if you're an employer) / deliriously (if you're a trade unionist) close to becoming law.

I know what you're thinking: "Hmmph. Private members bill? Made it this far? Probably about the labour rights of ferrets or some such nonsense. Where's my coffee?"

And now for the edumacation: It will alter the Canda Labour Code to prohibit, to at least some extent if not all, the use of replacement workers in a labour dispute.

It's Ok. Take a moment. Breathe. Clean up the coffee you spit out onto the screen, that stuff's not good for your keyboard, you know. I'll wait; I'm not going anywhere.

NOW, how did this happen? Apart from the fact that it's a moot point, I can't really explain it myself except to say that this is life in a minority government.

What fun.

In any event, because it's MY blog (dammit!), I'm going to say a few words about this. It has been suggested in a number of debates on this issue that the balancing of employers' and unions' needs in collective bargaining is established by both parties' ability to strike (if you're a union) or lockout (if you're an employer).

This line is generally provided by the pro-labour side, and its simplicity helps their cause greatly. People think, "hmmm, tit for tat, sounds fair..." and move on with their day.

But see, it's NOT tit-for-tat. Shutting down an operation is only one half of the debate; in the case of strikes, a group of workers says "YES! WE WANT X! AND WE'LL WALK AWAY FROM THE EMPLOYER TO MAKE IT HAPPEN." They vote, they (almost always) overwhelmingly present their strike mandate, they follow whatever legal requirements must be met in order to walk and still don't have a deal. And, they go out on strike.

The employer? They're likely saying something along the lines of "That's too expensive, we can't afford it, none of our competitors do it, it's inequitable with the rest of our staff, and/or we aren't interested in having to administrate it." And I'm sorry to those of you with more of a labour predilection, but employers often have the numbers to back up their claims of what you want being too expensive. So what are they to do?

If there are no replacement workers allowed, they hope they can hold out more than their employees can. In more than one instance (NordAir, because of MY background, sits high in my mind) everybody gets a kick in the groin when the company shuts down. Even if the worst doesn't happen, the entire business takes a hit as customers go elsewhere. Layoffs may still be the price EVERYBODY pays.

This is NOT balance. This is mutual suicide, or at least the kind of sociopathic behaviour associated with teenagers enjoy cutting themselves from time to time. And I don't see how it's good for anyone to absolutely restrict an employer's ability to operate when it's own employees have freely, democratically told their employer that they are no longer interested in doing the work. It at least keeps customers engaged and provides SOME assurance that perhaps there will be an employer to go back to once the strike's over.

So that's a strike. What about a lockout?

Here, even I'm a little divided. I mean, the employer says, "You know what? You're being unreasonable, you're not listening to us, we have business needs that are good for our prosperity and for YOURS. So you can take a walk and see how you feel." Well, a lot of employers would agree that that's a bold move, and hey, if you really don't need them, well, then I'm certainly prepared to take you at your word.

But then here's the thing. Desperate moves often come at pretty desperate times. What if there happen to be a wack (bushel? gaggle?) of available workers who are happy to cross a picket line and work under the employer's terms, even if their own unionized workers won't take them?

It seems to me that it still might be wise to let the labour market deliver the message when a union or its members will not listen. Especially if the employer's been trying to deliver that same message, to no avail. It's an effective way to let employees know that what the employer's been saying about remaining competitive and being out of touch with the market is not only true, but carries some real consequences for everybody.

And hey, the labour market works both ways. If it's strong, employers with a poor grasp on what's happening in a hot job market are going to have a hard time convincing anybody to stick around for the kinds of working conditions that struck work affords.

Just so we're clear, I don't debate that the use of replacement workers is fraught with difficulty for both sides. For unions, there is a basic ethical issue at stake, but it's THEIR ethical issue, and I think we all need realize there's another perspective. For employers, it's pure pragmatism: in some operations, training replacement workers is practically impossible anyway. To do so is exceedingly expensive and time consuming. And let's not forget the worker: Scab is not a nice term. No one wants to be called that, so it takes some tough times for an individual to accept the name calling and blunt-object-throwing as part of their working conditions. (On that note: UNIONS: Do you really think you're winning hearts and minds of non-unionized workers, especially younger ones, with that kind of behaviour? Just sayin'...)

But, if we want to talk about balance in collective bargaining, well it's not about both sides being able to walk or close the front gate. It's about being able to pursue your own interests to the point where you find either convergence or at least a place where the give-and-take feels fair to both sides. Banning replacement workers doesn't establish this balance; it merely tips the scale over.

*Is anyone else mildy alarmed by the fact that the Canada Labour Code and Canada Labour Congress have the same acronym? Sigh...too many conspiracy theories, too little time.