Federal civil servants have been on strike since last week, which necessarily causes service delays for citizens who need to contact government services. But this is not the only impact of the current walkout on the general population, far from it.
First of all, it must above all be understood that in terms of the number of employees affected, a strike in the public service is not a strike like any other.
The federal government has an “example” role as an employer. What the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) successfully negotiates with Treasury Board could quickly create a ripple effect and raise — or lower — expectations, first of provincial and municipal officials across the country , then unionized employees from other sectors.
We are therefore witnessing, in a way, a form of strike barometer of the transformations to come in the world of work. In the current inflationary context, the negotiation of collective agreements takes on an important political, economic and social dimension. What is at stake is less a specific wage increase than a standoff around the following principle: is it up to the workers to absorb the shock of inflation on the economy?
The employers’ parties, but also many more liberal or conservative economists, often repeat that a significant increase in wages would contribute to the inflationary cycle; workers would therefore have to agree to tighten their belts for some time to stem the phenomenon. We are told somewhat the same thing when we refuse to carry out a significant leveling of the minimum wage, even if we can no longer live decently at such hourly rates.
We already know that the causes of inflation in recent years are multiple. The pandemic and the war in Ukraine have notably created supply problems in several sectors. And major players have amplified the phenomenon by increasing their profit margins on products where a price increase was already expected. The oil and food sectors, in particular, are under the magnifying glass of critics.
These phenomena were of course not caused by ordinary people. However, when the central bank raises key rates, many homeowners worry about their ability to pay their mortgage. When building owners pass on this increase in the cost of borrowing to their tenants, they also necessarily suffer. And when we tell ourselves that wages should not be raised too much these days, once again, those who are struggling to pay for their groceries find themselves doing the bulk of the “war effort” against the inflation, while families closer to median wages see their standard of living drop considerably.
The percentage of wage increase on which the federal government and the PSAC will eventually agree will most certainly have a ripple effect on the collective agreements that will be renegotiated soon. What must be decided, therefore, is much more than a number. Rather, it is a model of what should be considered “right”, politically, in the current economic context.
But that’s not the only aspect of the current strike that concerns society at large, no matter how old our passports are or how eager we are for a tax return. The PSAC is also asking that the right to telework be enshrined in the new collective agreement: this is also a key political issue.
On the federal side, we rather believe that the current instructions, which require public servants to be in the office at least two days a week, are fair. It is also said that union demands for telework would end up having an impact on the quality of services to the population, in addition to tying the hands of managers.
When the government forced a (partial) return to office last fall, discontent among civil servants immediately mounted — particularly, it must be said, among the youngest and parents of young children. Many employees are very keen on the flexibility that has allowed them, since the pandemic, to choose the way of working that suits them best. Even among those who wish to be in the office more regularly, the idea of being forced to do so, without the demonstrated impact on productivity, has acted as an irritant. We are therefore dealing here with a largely intergenerational conflict, even if it does not quite say its name.
Given the exemplary nature of the federal public service, what will ultimately be decided will again raise or lower the expectations of office workers in a host of sectors.
And here again, the political and economic ramifications are broader: the question of telework indirectly has important repercussions on the role of
cities, the value of commercial spaces, the sprawl
urban, the phenomenon of rush hour, and therefore the need for roads (let’s think of the third link, isn’t it). The objective allies of the employer parties, here, are therefore all the economic actors whose business model is based on pre-pandemic urban development.
In closing, one last remark: in the context of a labor shortage, the unions are in a particularly strong position. For all these reasons, the outcome of this labor dispute should be taken as a signal of what is happening in the air.