The federal government stayed up way past its bedtime when confronted with a pair of Air Canada labour disputes just before the March Break earlier this year. It was 1:30 a.m. when the Conservatives voted to force the disputes to binding arbitration and keep the planes flying.
“Our government took decisive action to ensure the economic recovery is not harmed and stays on course,” Raitt said in a statement announcing that the bill had become law.
It was the second time Air Canada employees had been sent back to work in a year. In June 2011, Raitt introduced legislation to force back to work the airline’s striking service employees, who are represented by the Canadian Auto Workers.
The growing number of examples of government intervention in labour strife has everyone wondering whether Raitt will see fit to get involved in this summer’s CAW-Big Three automaker talks. The negotiations enter their second day on Wednesday, beginning with a meeting between the CAW and Ford. On Tuesday, the union met with General Motors in the morning and Chrysler in the afternoon.
The stakes in 2012 are high — the North American companies are on the rebound, but Canada’s dollar is high and its cost-competitiveness is low. The future prospects of Ontario’s automobile plants are in question.
The auto plants fall under provincial jurisdiction, and Raitt’s office said in a statement that the minister won’t be commenting on the negotiations.
“The minister continues to following the negotiation process and is interested in seeing the response from the province,” spokeswoman Ashley Kelahear said.
That’s good news for CAW National President Ken Lewenza. He believes Raitt will respect the constitutional boundaries.
“I think the federal government will watch it very closely. Needless to say, they have a significant investment in the industry,” he said. “But the auto talks are of provincial labour responsibility. So the federal government can’t order workers back to work or limit our bargaining skills.”
Former CAW National President Buzz Hargrove is less confident Ottawa will take a hands-off approach, after seeing the government intervene in the Air Canada-CAW dispute last year. He wonders whether they’ll come up with a justification, if push comes to shove.
“I would not be a bit surprised. They’d have the argument that, ‘We’re part owners here, we put a lot of money in to help the companies through a tough period and therefore we’re getting involved.’ ”
Ironically, the government would almost have a better justification for getting involved in an automaker dispute. George Smith, a Queen’s University labour relations professor, noted the economic health of the Big Three is, arguably, more important than Air Canada’s. But constitutional law dictates that it’s not Raitt’s place.
“I’m sure there will be back-room discussions, but all of this will be handled under the Ontario Labour Code with Ontario conciliators and an Ontario head of government who’s been very reluctant to get involved,” Smith said.
Just as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty steered clear of this winter’s Electro-Motive dispute in London, he’s unlikely to play a role in an autoworker strike — even if the federal Conservative government wishes he would.
“So far, the Conservative government has shown a reluctance to put pressure on the provincial government,” Smith said. “They’ve respected those constitutional boundaries.”
Smith added that a fast and amicable settlement would be best for both the union movement and the companies. Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak recently authored a white paper that proposes sweeping labour law changes in the province, an effort to strip power from the unions and make Ontario more competitive. Public disputes could help him to build momentum.
“If there is a protracted strike and if there is a demand, there’s no question that government intervention is on the table now, because of what the feds have been doing. And that may play into Hudak’s hand.”
Observers are divided on how likely a strike is, but no one is predicting a major shutdown at this point. The average number of hours an employee spends on strike has declined markedly over the last 30 years in Canada, from 10.6 hours in 1976 to 0.3 hours in 2010.
“A strike is the last tool. We have to prepare for it, build solidarity in membership to prepare for it,” Lewenza said. But our objective is to get the job done, and hopefully we can get the job done without government interfering. But you never know today.”
Mike Moffatt, an economist at the University of Western Ontario, thinks government intervention would only be likely in the event of a prolonged strike.
“Maybe if there were a strike at Chrysler that was running for three, four, six months, at that point the government may decide to intervene. But until then, I think they’re going to take a hands-off approach.”
The CAW is increasingly conscious of the need to balance their demands with the realities of 2012, given the current government climate. They are starting to look at other ways of staying relevant and holding on to public goodwill. In the works is a merger with the CEP. The CAW has also drafted a National Auto Policy that proposes best practices from around the world.
Hargrove said what needs to happen is more community involved like what happened in London during the Caterpillar lockout, when the CAW went to City Hall and got the mayor on side, and handed out leaflets to ordinary people, getting other union workers to support them.
“We got to do a better job working with community groups. We’ve got to be more supportive of social action groups that are working on behalf of those that have no power in society.”
But it doesn’t always go smoothly.
The CAW’s Local 444 in Windsor staged a pro-choice demonstration that drew about 100 people in June. But the event infuriated some pro-life members of the union, who turned up for a counter-protest across the street.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Sonya Bell
No comments:
Post a Comment