Right to Strike in the Federal Sector

Employers are campaigning to limit the right to strike.

Multiple employer associations are lobbying the government on imposing an interest arbitration regime. Their public campaign tries to link strike action and the threat of strike action to extreme weather events and geopolitical crises as a source of risk to the resiliency of supply chains. Transport Canada has included labour disputes as part of their supply chain resiliency risk issues in a draft report. The report's release was delayed before the election.

• Launch lobbying campaign targeting ministers overseeing federally regulated sectors outlining the union's opposition to compulsory arbitration to end disputes.
• Build internally focused campaign outlining the threat to bargaining rights with focus on the employer association's cynical use of the crises to undermine labour rights.
• Ensure Reps in federal sector are ready for strike action during rounds of bargaining to limit calls for settlement through arbitration.
• Reference right to strike in communication dealing with federal sector bargaining.
• Build multi-union campaign of Canadian and American unions to vocally support right to strike. Include CUPE and PSAC in original coalition. Expand to include ITF.
• Launch support campaign on general right to strike in support of ITUC legal defence of strike under the ILO.

• Rail companies launched a campaign against the right to strike after port strikes and Teamsters bargaining to reform federal supply chain sector bargaining. The lobbying was targeted at Transport Canada's review of supply chain resilience following the issues caused by the pandemic.
• Rail companies have co-ordinated to identify what they call "Critical Infrastructure" and proclaiming it should fall under an essential service designation.
• The campaign was expanded by FETCO to target anti-scab legislation, claiming it put this critical infrastructure at risk of a "small number of workers" disrupting the entire economy.
• The ILO explicitly outlines that ports and single transport routes should not be identified as essential services when it comes to bargaining.
• International campaign of similar employer associations has targeted the ILO conventions and interpretations around the right to strike. They are attempting to remove that interpretation of No. 87 on freedom of association.
• A new campaign by federal sector employers (including rail) under the banner of Moving Economies have included direct allusions to arbitration to settle disputes as one of their three recommendations.

Canadian employers have now shifted their narrative to include the trade war and the renewed attention on regulation in their campaign to eliminate the right to strike. The claim is the same, that strikes are a risk to critical infrastructure and capital investment in Canada and should be limited.

• Expansion of the definition of "essential services" beyond those service related to immediate risk to life.
• Sector-focused pattern bargaining will be undone.
• Innovation of CA language dealing with new issues such as AI-related automation, just transition, preferential hiring, violence leave equity advocates, pension and benefits will not be possible.
• Unions going first with lower bargaining power could set terms for the entire industry.
• Demobilization of members where the union will be blamed for "independent" arbitrators.

The following issues make labour vulnerable to the campaign by employer associations against the right to strike in the federal sector:

• New political orientation of Leadership of Liberal Party and Carney.
• General anti-regulation sentiment globally.
• Trade war from the USA.
• The response to the trade war being focused on private sector investment.
• Continued stress on supply chains since the pandemic from war, geopolitical risks, climate change-related weather events, China-USA conflict, and tariff changes.
• Tough rounds of bargaining with workers attempting to regain real wage growth after higher than anticipated inflation and fears of automation related job loss.
• Employers facing increased risk and low profitability.

The union movement's response to the employers' campaign should match its intensity and sophistication. There is likely a short window where their campaign could be successful, especially given their focus on Transport Canada which has been filled with ideologues who believe any regulation or public ownership should be avoided while companies should be self regulated to solve issues Canada faces.

A concerted labour campaign linking the right to strike as a uniquely Canadian right (compared to the USA) as essential to high wages, keeping money in Canada, and essential to deal with modern problems like AI could be successful.

The broad focus of Unifor in the federal sectors should be slowing down the push by employers to deregulate everything is essential to maintaining employment and wages in Canada. Transfers of wealth to (mostly American owned) capital cannot be the only answer presented for the current crises.