Unions looking to new legislative protections, community-based organizing for growth
Unionization rates in Canada are falling, from 33.7 per cent in 1997 to 31.5 per cent in 2010, and it’s ground that won’t be regained easily or with the status quo, according to panelists at a recent discussion on rebuilding union density held during the Canadian Labour Congress’ annual convention in Toronto.
CAW economist Jim Stanford says a combination of globalization and a “new breed of conservatism” have dismantled many of the post Second World War structures that once supported the growth of unions in Canada.
“Employers feel they have an out,” he says. “If I don’t like what’s on offer here, I can go elsewhere.”
As a result, Stanford says unions have to be more innovative in their approach to collective bargaining. By way of example he points to the “framework of fairness” deal between the CAW and Magna under which the union gave up the right to strike in exchange for a final-offer arbitration to settle contract disputes.
“There’s a mutual understanding,” says Stanford. “The company accepts the union but the union agrees to do things in a different way.”
He also references the recent recommendations by the Voisey’s Bay Industrial Inquiry Commission. The commission was appointed to help settle a bitter and protracted labour dispute between mining giant Vale and the United Steelworkers.
Among several proposals, the report called for a change to provincial labour law that would impose binding arbitration under certain conditions.
Stanford says unionization rates will only increase with policies such as this in place.
“The collective bargaining field has been tilted in favour of business,” he says. “We need different policies about how unions are formed and how disputes are resolved.”
Even with more union-friendly legislation, there is still the question of how to boost membership. The key, according to Stanford and fellow panelist Grace-Edward Galabuzi, is to tap into under-represented populations: immigrants, women, aboriginals and workers of colour.
Galabuzi, a professor in politics at Ryerson University and a research associate at the Centre for Social Justice, says a more community-based approach is needed.
“These people represent an existential threat to the labour movement,” he says. “They’re the pool of labour that’s being used to replace workers who were in good paying jobs. Employers will use them to weaken labour and whittle down the numbers of organized workers.”
Galabuzi says the solution is multi-pronged. To start, organizers shouldn’t necessarily try to create a union but rather an affiliation — much like the UFCW has organized the Agriculture Workers Alliance.
“This allows them to resist the worst working conditions and wages, and ensures employers can’t use them as a pool of labour to replace other workers,” he says.
More importantly, according to Galabuzi, is that unions think about labour’s interest beyond the immediate workplace.
For example, the public sector’s concern about contracting out should be reframed as something of broader interest to the wider community — not only public servants on the job.
“The idea is to not fight political fights only in the workplace,” he says.
Finally, organized labour must consolidate its gains, according to Galabuzi. He says unions have done a poor job of speaking for workers in part-time or precarious jobs because they’ve been fixated with organizing in the public sector. Almost three-quarters of all union members in Canada were public servants in 2010, according to Statistics Canada.
“Rather than organizing in the private sector where workers are more vulnerable, they’ve gone where it was secure,” he says critically.
In recent years, both the USW and CAW have branched out to previously unrepresented fields in the private sector. The next step, according to Galabuzi, is to now go beyond the traditional methods of organizing.
“They need to consider sending in people from that community,” he says. “If you’re going to organize Tamils, you can’t go in with white males.”
