Anti-scab laws deserve serious debate

Just weeks ago, Unifor helped put an end to the longest-ever work stoppage in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. Thirty workers in Gander held a picket line for nearly two years.

That’s two years of heartache for families, some single parents, scraping by on $200 per week in unionassisted pay. Not because these were a group of greedy, privileged workers needlessly itching for a fight, but because they were locked out of their jobs by their U.S. employer, DJ Composites. Workers told that their wages ($16 an hour on average) were too rich. Threatened to have their collective agreement torn to shreds.

Our best efforts to reach a negotiated settlement were thwarted. Why? Because the company had no reason to bargain. Factory production was in full swing. Not a pinch of economic pain was felt, because scabs were running the shop.

Thankfully, and because of sustained pressure by our union, the provincial government finally intervened after months of silence. There is still no resolution in Gander, but the matter is now proceeding to binding arbitration. The lockout is over, and our members are happy to be back to work.

I personally spent a lot of time on that picket line, sharing stories, laughs and tears with our lockedout members. It was gutwrenching. That is why I was so disappointed to read a recent article in FP Comment arguing against anti-scab laws (“Save the scabs,” Oct. 11, 2018).

I had to read it twice just to make sure it was not a joke. (Frankly, I’m still not entirely sure).

To paraphrase: the writer suggested (among other things) that the Gander dispute was actually a union assault on disadvantaged workers; that Unifor’s proposal to legislate prohibitions on scab labour was a showpiece of “union privilege”; and that “competition among employers” not unions or collective bargaining, is “the only thing that offers real worker protection.” Give me strength. Let’s be clear, I appreciate debate and differences of opinion. However, the idea that there is somehow cutand-dry historical evidence that proves anti-scab legislation is a failed policy needs correcting.

The fact is there have been numerous studies undertaken in Canada over the past 30 years, far more than those that the author has conveniently cherry-picked.

In citing one study that shows anti-scab laws were connected to a 1.8-per-cent drop in wages (between 1978 and 2008), the article neglected to say that the same study showed wages rising, thanks to anti-scab laws, since 1993.

Another study suggested that after introducing antiscab legislation, the length of work stoppages actually declined.

As the recent Ontario’s Changing Workplaces Review gathered evidence and information on labour reform from leading experts, Tim Bartkiw, a professor of Industrial Relations at Ryerson University, published an extensive review of past studies on strikes and strikerelated laws, including antiscab impact studies. It may be the most extensive review to date.

Not only does he caution against relying too heavily on the results of a particular study, since results vary quite a lot, he also explained the limited ability to use the results to support claims about the effects of anti-scab laws.

It is unfortunate the writer of the original commentary chose to root his own matter-of-fact views from a report issued by the Fraser Institute (a business-friendly think tank that has a decidedly negative view on unions and strikes) rather than an actual, impartial and sober read of the research.

To suggest that allowing companies to lock out employees for the sole purpose of bringing in scabs to work for less is somehow good for workers is beyond ridiculous. Ask yourself: Is there someone out there who would be willing to do your job for less? Competition is fine. But pitting worker against worker in a race to the bottom is not.

Foolish arguments rooted in bad research can only drive bad decisions — the same bad labour-policy decisions that kept Unifor members on the picket line, needlessly, for 663 days.

It is time Canada had a proper debate on anti-scab legislation.

COMPETITION IS FINE. PITTING WORKER AGAINST WORKER IS NOT.