Activities under federal jurisdiction are vital for the economy, but also for citizens’ quality of life. This is why any disruption in the supply chain, such as a labor dispute, can cause disproportionate effects.
In the past, examples at the Port of Montreal, at Canadian National or at airports have shown us that the consequences can be enormous. Delays are added and it is Canada’s reputation that suffers.
Precisely, the conflict which paralyzed the port of Montreal in 2020 then in 2021 cost up to 25 million per day of work lost. Clearly, no one wins that federally regulated businesses are so vulnerable. These are crucial to the functioning of our economy.
Such was our astonishment when, last October, the federal government announced that it wanted to prohibit employers under federal jurisdiction from using replacement workers during a strike or lockout. Thus, businesses such as ports, banks, telecommunications and broadcasting, air, rail and maritime transport would be affected. Is it really Ottawa’s wish to encourage such disruptions during a labor dispute?
Remember that a replacement worker, as its name suggests, comes to temporarily replace a striking employee in order to allow the company to continue some of its activities.
Of course, this is small consolation. The company nevertheless deprives itself of an employee when it is asked to perform the duties of another worker on strike.
Imagine if we took away this last emergency resort; it would be completely inoperative as long as the conflict lasts. However, the strike is a very real means of pressure. Isn’t it enough?
Why want to change the rules of the game when they are currently balanced and healthy for unions and employers?
In a brief sent to the federal government, the Conseil du patronat du Québec specifies that it does not in any way question the constitutional right of Canadian workers to strike. The possibility of using replacement workers in no way affects the scope of this right.
The relevance of such a ban belied by the Quebec experience
Quebec is one of only two Canadian provinces to prohibit employers from using replacement workers during a strike.
In more than 40 years since it came into force, the ban on the use of replacement workers in Quebec has shown no benefit, whether in terms of reducing the number of labor disputes, their intensity or their duration. What shortcomings are we trying to correct here?
Disproportionate impacts to consider
If Ottawa were to ban replacement workers, the balance of power would be upset. Businesses, the economy and Canadians would suffer. A concrete example ? Pharmacy shelves would be even emptier than they are now.
Supply chains are already under strain. A labor dispute during which there would be a complete stoppage of activities would only add fuel to the fire.
Thousands of organizations like hospitals, ambulance services and businesses of all sizes depend on the proper functioning of federal enterprises. It is thanks to these that they can obtain supplies and manage their stocks.
Only one question then comes to mind: who are we doing a favor by considering such a ban? Certainly not to citizens.