The New Right

No, it's not a comment on the aftermath of Rev. Falwell's sudden demise. This is, of course, a post about the Supreme Court of Canada's decision to include collective bargaining as a limited right under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Free of legal mumbo jumbo, and possibly free of any common sense. (I'm a little over-caffeinated right now...)

Collective bargaining is, ostensibly, a new right. The Court has rejected this notion in the past, back when the Charter was a wobbly toddler and bumping to chairs with the words "visible minorities" and "ageism" written on them, preferring to leave collective bargaining to governments to manage it as a matter of labour policy.

And manage it they did. For the most part, limitations on collective bargaining were fairly understandable (even if you didn't agree with them) and related to such issues as the provision of essential services and trying to delineate between true public policy issues and negotiable workplace conditions. Granted, not permitting agricultural workers to unionize seems a little harsh, but when everybody's doing the "No, You Can't Do That" Dance (alongside the "It's Been That Way For Years" Shuffle), well, who wants to be left out?

And then B.C. came along. Just so we're clear: I'M NOT GOING TO DEBATE MY THOUGHTS ON THE BC LIBERALS. I feel no need to add to what's being said about that government, because really: Have you Googled it? A LOT of people have already had their say. Given that I live in Ontario, I don't feel the need to spout off on something ELSE I don't know anything about.

Right, 'nuff about me. Where were we? Oh, B.C. They didn't like their health care costs. They particularly didn't like the fact that janitors and cafeteria staff were being paid what they were being paid, and that these folks were lumped in with other Health Care Professionals. So they thought: this work could be contracted out! And for lower wage costs! What genius!

Unfortunately for a lot of people (and fortunately for a lot of other people, including perhaps agricultural workers) BC didn't consult with its unions about it. It certainly didn't negotiate any changes. It had something else: legislation. Which the government passed. The Health Care Social Services Delivery and Improvement Act took out a number of job protections within BC's health care collective agreements to essentially facilitate a transfer of jobs from direct health care providers to outsourcing companies.

To give this some more context, after the BC government did this, several other notorious pieces of legislation were passed in BC and Newfoundland & Labrador ordering striking workers back to work AND imposing wages and working conditions. Occasionally with wage ROLLBACKS.

It is little wonder, then, that the Supreme Court of Canada took a look around and said, "You know? Maybe we were wrong about leaving it ENTIRELY to you."

The implications for this decision are still be sorted out, BUT I don't necessarly think it is the win that unions are trumpeting it as. The SCC put out a number of limitations on the right itself, so it's not entirely a gimme.

That said, I think certain groups, like the RCMP, stand to benefit from this ruling. (See this item halfway down the page for an earlier discussion on the RCMPs inability to unionize.) It may also just make governments a little less likely to use the weapon of harsh back-to-work legislation, for fear of a Charter challenge.

I personally think this latter point would be a great development, from an employee engagement perspective: governments need people, and will need them even more as Canadian public servants start to retire en masse in the next few years. I refuse to see how refusing to allow certain public sector employees to bargain collectively, or to allow them to do so but use legislation to effectively render their concerns null and void, is a good long-term strategy for attracting the talent you so desperately need.