Along with short-term gains, such as Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. railcars loaded with everything from grain to lumber rolling again, thanks to legislation introduced Monday by Labour Minister Lisa Raitt, it often leaves long-term pain.
“You’re mortgaging the future, and not knowing how much that mortgage is going to cost,” said George Smith, who teaches labour relations at Queen’s University. “In spite of the appearance of labour peace, there is no such thing.”
Last Wednesday, 4,800 CP workers walked off the job, abruptly ending freight train service across the country. Monday’s back-to-work legislation, the Restoring Rail Service Act, orders them back on the job immediately.
Raitt has said service could resume as early as Thursday.
Smith, who has been a company negotiator for both CP Rail and Air Canada, says disputes not hammered out at the bargaining table end up with unresolved issues.
And the anger can easily fester, as seen this spring when frustrated pilots, baggage handlers and machinists at Air Canada, upset by Raitt’s decision to block a work stoppage altogether, took part in a separate sickout and wildcat strike.
The flight cancellations and disruptions that followed actually created more headaches for the very travellers Raitt was trying to protect when she brought in pre-emptive back-to-work legislation.
“Naively, the government thought it could legislate certainty and legislate peace, and neither of those things have resulted,” Smith said.
The federal government has consistently intervened in areas it regulates, from ports to grain handlers to railways, but it was unheard of to bring in back-to-work legislation before a disruption, or just hours after a strike began.
Since the Tories won their majority government last May, it has brought back-to-work legislation four times. From 2000 to 2006, Liberal governments did not introduce any.
Parliament legislated Canada Post workers back to work last June, after rotating strikes and a lockout shut down the postal service. An arbitrator was to settle the contract, but it remains tied up in the courts nearly a year later.
Raitt has repeatedly intervened in Air Canada disputes, citing the importance of air service including cargo to the Canadian economy. Flight attendants were blocked last fall from walking off the job, after Raitt referred the matter to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. An arbitrator imposed a contract the membership had earlier rejected.
Though the airline and unions representing pilots and mechanics agreed this month to resume negotiations, after the illegal job actions, no deals were reached. Both disputes are now in the hands of arbitrators.
Raitt has cited Canada’s fragile economy for her reasons for intervening, but Smith argues she may be causing long-term economic harm to these companies.
They are seeking fundamental change within their organizations, by starting a discount airline at Air Canada or dealing with expensive pension obligations at CP Rail.
“These are management demands that they perceive as necessary, with some validity I think, necessary for their long-term competitive success,” Smith said. “If the companies can’t negotiate those collective agreements, there will be a long-term impact on the profitability of the companies.”
While companies may be counting on an arbitrator to give them the fundamental change they need, Maurice Mazerolle, director of the Centre for Labour Management at Ryerson University, believes a third party won’t do that.
“Arbitrators typically tend not to reinvent the wheel,” he said. “They tend to look at what’s been happening, and they will come in the middle.”
Still CAW president Ken Lewenza believes it is through the collective bargaining process that “you develop the trust, the respect, and the understanding of the business and the union.”
If a third-party makes the decision, the union will just resist, Lewenza said.
“If they are not part of the process, if they are not part of the discussion, if they are not part of the decision, it is inevitable the union’s only role is to resist.”
The threat of intervention can also have a “narcotic effect,” where people get used to arbitrators settling disputes.
“Your ability to bargain tends to atrophy,” said Mazerolle, arguing this happens in sectors where strikes are prohibited. “The union can make outrageous demands. Management can make outrageous demands — showboat like hell, but then blame the arbitrator.”
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Vanessa Lu
No comments:
Post a Comment