The following is an open letter signed by 70 labour scholars from across the country, representing a wide array of disciplines (law, industrial relations, labour studies, and social sciences).
Labour disruptions have grown since the Covid-19 pandemic, as workers facing a cost-of-living crisis attempt to make up for decades of stagnating wages and eroding job quality. Alongside these struggles anti-union discourse in the media has increased, as have anti-union policies at all levels in Canada. As labour studies scholars, we are concerned that governments and employers are seeking to weaken unions precisely when workers need them most.
The prime target of these attacks has been workers’ right to strike. Despite the Supreme Court ruling in 2015 that striking is a constitutionally protected right, governments have intensified efforts to restrain it. At the federal level, the Liberal government rediscovered section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and has repeatedly used it to end work stoppages or even pre-empt workers from going on strike, something that section was never designed to do. The decision of Air Canada flight attendants to defy its use and refuse to return to work exposed both the lack of preparedness of the company and the government, and the corrosive effects of repeated intervention in labour disputes. Government interference compromises workers’ ability to secure better wages and working conditions.
Similar efforts are underway at the provincial level. Québec’s Bill 89, for instance, expands the notion of “essential services” far beyond the International Labour Organization’s definition, which emphasizes threats to life, health and safety. The bill also grants the Minister of Labour sweeping powers to impose binding arbitration and stop strikes. The current process to revise the federal Labour Code, backed by a recent Senate report, suggests the Carney government may pursue further restrictions to the right to strike under the pretext of economic development and national emergency. However, if “essential services” come to include anything that “harms” the economy, then no-one will have the right to strike.
It is important to remember that Canada already has one of the most restricted rights to strike among industrialized countries. Because this right is tied to being unionized, only about 30% of workers can legally exercise it. Unionized workers can strike only when collective agreements have expired and bargaining has reached an impasse, and then only on topics directly linked to bargaining. Essential services legislation and back-to-work laws further constrain this right.
Canadians owe a great deal to striking workers. Research shows that gains such as paid vacations, maternity leave, health insurance, and workplace safety regulations were often won through collective action. Strikes allow workers to exercise collective power and challenge the concentration of wealth. Attacking the right to strike therefore undermines a key mechanism for addressing growing inequality. The renewed interest in curbing strikes largely serves employers’ and industry interests at workers’ expense.
At the same time, anti-union discourse has increasingly focused on corruption and alleged lack of financial transparency in unions. Of course, there are incidents of corruption in unions and when they happen, they harm workers. But there is no indication that this phenomenon is more present among unions than in businesses, governments, or non-profits. In fact, unions’ democratic structures often offer stronger guarantees of transparency than most corporate processes or public policies. Where corruption occurs, it is often linked to weakened union democracy, sometimes involving leaders supported by business interests to displace more radical, less compliant representatives.
The best way to make unions more resistant to corruption is to further democratize workplaces, empowering workers to hold their officers accountable. This is not what “financial transparency” legislation accomplishes. Instead, measures from the federal Bill C-377 from 2012 to Québec’s Bill 3 more recently impose heavy bureaucratic burdens that bury unions in red tape without providing workers with any new powers.
Québec’s Bill 3 even dictates what unions can and cannot do with union dues, excluding political action. Alberta’s Bill 32 imposed similar restrictions in 2020, drawing on U.S.-style legislation aimed at limiting unions’ broader social role. These measures aim to restrict union power because unions are one of the most important counterweights to corporate power in policymaking.
Unions are not without flaws. But they remain essential not only for fair treatment of workers, but for redistributing wealth and strengthening democracy. Attacking the right to strike, or invoking corruption to justify tighter controls, will only further weaken workers’ power and democracy. Now more than ever, we need stronger unions and more worker participation in them—not more restrictions.
Signatories
Simon Black, Brock University
David Blocker, Huron University College
Alison Braley-Rattai, Brock University
Susan Cake, Athabasca University
David Calnitsky, University of Western Ontario
David Camfield, University of Manitoba
Étienne Cantin, Université Laval
Marlea Clarke, University of Victoria
Thomas Collombat, Université du Québec en Outaouais
Martine D’Amours, Université Laval
David Doorey, York University
Mélanie Dufour-Poirier, Université de Montréal
Edward Dunsworth, McGill University
Mathieu Dupuis, Université Laval
Barry Eidlin, McGill University
Mylène Fauvel, Université du Québec en Outaouais
Alvin Finkel, Athabasca University
Jason Foster, Athabasca University
David Frank, University of New Brunswick
Judy Fudge, McMaster University
Diane Gagné, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Mona-Josée Gagnon, Université de Montréal
Dalia Gesualdi-Fecteau, Université de Montréal
Peter Graefe, McMaster University
Paul Christopher Gray, Brock University
Julie Guard, University of Manitoba
Jesse Hajer, University of Manitoba
John-Henry Harter, Simon Fraser University
Robert Hebdon, McGill University
Steven High, Concordia University
Jordan House, Brock University
Mark Hudson, University of Manitoba
Gregory Kealey, University of New Brunswick
Paul Kellogg, Athabasca University
Adam D.K. King, University of Manitoba
Rob Kristofferson, Wilfrid Laurier University
Xavier Lafrance, Université du Québec à Montréal
Paul-André Lapointe, Université Laval
Corynne Laurence-Ruel, Université de Montréal
Valérie Lederer, Université du Québec en Outaouais
Christian Lévesque, HEC Montréal
Finn Makela, Université de Sherbrooke
Peter S. McInnis, St. Francis Xavier University
Suzanne Mills, McMaster University
Stéphane Moulin, Université de Montréal
Gregor Murray, Université de Montréal
Kirk Niergarth, Mount Royal University
Yanick Noiseux, Université de Montréal
Mathieu Perron-Dufour, Université du Québec en Outaouais
John Peters, Memorial University
Stephanie Premji, McMaster University
Camille Robert, Université de Montréal
Stephanie Ross, McMaster University
Jason Russell, Empire State University SUNY
Joan Sangster, Trent University
Larry Savage, Brock University
Charles Smith, St. Thomas More College, University of Saskatchewan
Julia Smith, University of Manitoba
Sid Ahmed Soussi, Université du Québec à Montréal
Cynthia Spring, Athabasca University
Andrew Stevens, University of Regina
Donald Swartz, Carleton University
Jeffery Taylor, University of Manitoba
Mark Thomas, York University
Simon Tremblay-Pepin, Université Saint-Paul
Eric Tucker, York University
Steven Tufts, York University
Leah Vosko, York University
Tommy Wu, McMaster University
Charlotte Yates, Guelph University
