Conference on Organized labour
Responses to the Conference Paper
Mark Thompson
Faculty of Commerce, University of British Columbia
1 September 1998
This my first expression on the questions raised in the paper. I refer only to the labour movement in Canada at this stage.
Canadian unions have attempted to organize "new workers" in fairly traditional ways--seeking to interest them in unionization where there is some indication of interest. They have not emphasized services to individual workers. Internal divisions have not been a major issue, compared to other problems labour faces. Several unions, including the Canadian Labour Congress, have reserved seats for women in their senior executive bodies. There are conscious efforts to include women in slates of candidates for union office. In some regions, slate-making includes members of linguistic groups (French and English) and probably immigrant groups, although I can't think of any examples. As a movement, Canadian labour is devoting much more resources to organizing. In British Columbia, the Federation of Labour has started an organizing institute to train organizers to work in the service sector. They are trying to enlist young persons as staff representatives so they can relate to young workers in some of the low-end service jobs. The Canadian Auto Workers diverted excess revenues in its strike fund to increasing its organizing budget by 50% last year.
When labour is unable to organize workers, it relies on minimum standards legislation to ensure basic rights and conditions. Employers realize this, so these statutes are becoming more controversial.
Changes in bargaining structure have not been as profound in Canada as they appear elsewhere because bargaining has traditionally been decentralized. The modal bargaining unit in this country is one union-one employer. That said, bargaining has become more decentralized yet. Provincial bargaining units in the pulp and paper industry in BC and the construction industry in Alberta have been dismantled. Traditional pattern bargaining in several industries, pulp and paper in Ontario and Quebec, autos in Ontario, meat-packing, for instance have weakened or disappeared. Employers have not used these changes as means to escape unionism, more to weaken labour's bargaining power. The law in most provinces makes it impossible to eliminate union representation through a change in bargaining structure. Labour's response to management initiatives, joint effort to raise productivity, quality circles and the like, tends to vary depending on the level of the organization, however. At the highest levels, peak congresses and national unions, the rhetoric is to oppose these efforts, by and large. However, unions are pragmatic and they make deals. At the local level, some of these initiatives are quite successful, and the higher levels of the union hierarchy turns a blind eye. A couple of unions favour cooperation, but they are in a minority.
I can't think of any rivals to organized labour claiming to represent workers. There is enough of a corporatist tradition in Canada that labour still has a representative function in most jurisdictions, although governments in the most conservative provinces, Ontario and Alberta, avoid any contact with labour, let alone any other group. Some Canadian unions, particularly in the public sector, have formed alliances with other interest groups, environmentalists, churches, women's organizations and political interest groups, to engage in political action. Labour was prominent in a coalition that opposed the Free Trade Agreement with the US. Unions with a proportion of female members maintain contact with feminist organizations on issues of common interest. On environmental issues, private sector unions often side with employers to protect the economic viability of enterprises. I haven't see any evidence that these alliances have had any impact in the workplace. They are more loose coalitions of the left, and labour doesn't seem to get much support from its partners on purely labour relations issues.
When permitted, Canadian unions participate actively in training and re-training programs. There is a national organization, the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre, with these objectives. Labour is a major member, with something approaching parity on the board of directors. However, if this body were being established by today's federal government, I am not sure that labour would be so well treated. The problem is not labour's reluctance to participate--it is employer unease at being seen with labour and government indifference to the labour movement, depending on the political climate of the jurisdiction. Apart from some investment activities, mutual funds or union pension funds, where unions direct funds to various activities, labour has not supported in alternative forms of work organization, which are not common in Canada anyhow.
Canadian labour attempts to act internationally--it is active in international trade union organizations, and there are some contacts with Mexico arising out of the North America Free Trade Agreement. In some industries, the dominant unions are American based, so there is a ready channel of communication with the US. Overall, however, I have not seen many results from these contacts, apart from giving life to some political activities. Labour opposes free trade, which was enacted by the Conservative Party. The governing Liberal Party opposed it while in opposition and is now a fervent advocate of free trade. Unions in Quebec, like their society generally, tend to favour free trade. Thus these international contacts have generally been in support of losing causes. Ironically, some international contacts have weakened. 20 years ago, over half of Canadian union members were in "international", i.e. US-based, organizations. Now that figure is less than one-third and shrinking.
The challenge for labour in Canada is organizing in the small employer and service sector areas. These are the sources of growth in the economy, and they have not proved receptive to traditional unionism. In British Columbia, labour has had some success with fast food workers, but these employers resist unionization strongly and have the means to pay handsomely to keep labour out. Labour has had no impact to speak of in the computer segment of the high technology industry. In Quebec and Ontario, however, the aviation and telecommunications industries are organized and seem to be successful, by and large with fairly traditional forms of labour relations, as far as I can tell.
As an academic, I think labour and the rest of us should be thinking of alternative forms of representation, but I haven't detected any support for that position. Canadian collective bargaining has been fairly successful where it exists. The US arguments that de-unionization is necessary to compete, etc. don't have as much currency here and frankly don't stand up to scrutiny. The national political/social culture accepts a role for organized labour, although most employers would rather have unions someplace else. With the exception of the Ontario provincial government, most jurisdictions at least tolerate unions, and labour has enough residual political strength to make it uncomfortable for anyone who really seeks to dislodge it.
I hope these comments contribute to your dialogue, and I look forward to seeing the results.
|
