The rail labour dispute should lead us to question the right to strike in monopoly (or duopoly) situations. I am surprised that this questioning has not occurred earlier, especially since the Supreme Court prohibited governments from preventing unionized employees from striking (Saskatchewan decision, in 2015). […]
When a striking company competes with other companies, the company’s customers can obtain the goods or services from other companies. Company managers and unionized workers have an interest in settling the labor dispute to avoid losing customers.
But this dynamic disappears in the case of an employer or union monopoly and for public services. The strikes by the civil servants of the City of Montreal allowed them to obtain generous and very expensive conditions and remuneration to the detriment of taxpayers, while the possibility for the provincial government to force the return to work of provincial civil servants made it possible to limit their salaries, to the point of creating a large gap between provincial and municipal civil servants (which risks fading because of the Saskatchewan decision). It has become difficult to limit the appetite of the unions, which can impose a disruption of services to all citizens.
CN and CPKC are private companies, but the same problem arises. The interruption of rail transport affects the customers of these companies. They do not have the possibility of using another rail network because there is none. The consequences for all customers and consumers are enormous. We are being held hostage by the monopoly. The federal minister’s manoeuvre is a move that could be challenged in a court of law. The consequences of this labour dispute go far beyond the employer and union parties: they affect society as a whole.
The right to strike cannot be exercised legitimately in cases of monopoly since its use excessively affects consumers and citizens who have no power to defend themselves, even if they are the ones who pick up the bill. The right to strike can only be exercised legitimately in the case of private companies in genuine competition.
To see in video