Some things are getting ridiculous at refinery

Elements of standoff almost near historic ridiculousness

The intersection where politics and the law seem to most often cross paths in Saskatchewan has been in labour disputes.

This is an important thing to remember as the leaders of Federated Co-op Ltd. (FCL) and Unifor are now at least meeting — albeit, to discuss issues but not to bargain — in the 54-day lockout dispute.

It’s reasonable FCL would demand barricades and other illegal activities cease in a dispute that’s already seen 14 charges for Criminal

Code violations and a $100,000 fine against the union for contempt of court for breaching the order limiting how long pickets could delay fuel trucks. Respecting the law is the minimum expectation and that any side would lose sight of this would seem ridiculous.

Then again, elements of this dispute are reaching near historic ridiculousness. We’ve seen the union misidentify an individual as a scab and refuse to take ownership for its own potentially libellous mistake. However, one also can’t imagine how ludicrous Unifor members must find the Co-op Refinery’s latest claim that union members don’t want to contribute to their pensions when FCL executive vice-president

Vic Huard stated in March 2017: “To be perfectly clear, every single employee who is currently in the defined benefits plan will remain in that plan from now until when they retire.”

What might be even more farcical is Regina Police Chief Evan Bray meeting with Unifor national president Jerry Dias after Dias’s arrest to discuss/mediate/negotiate anything. In what world does someone charged with a criminal offence meet with the chief of police afterward — especially when that person and his organization seem to be alleging the police are guilty of misconduct?

The absurd reality is both the law and the enforcement thereof are now seen as just tactical elements in Saskatchewan labour disputes. Surely, both should mean much more than that.

But given the province’s 50-year history of tweaking labour law to suit the vested interests of those supporting the party that’s in power, it’s pretty much come to that.

To be clear, this still doesn’t mean anyone gets to break the law, and moronic notions on social media that what we are witnessing is something akin to Rosa Parks-like defiance of an unjust law is nonsensical.

That said, among the first acts of this Saskatchewan Party government was to hamper unions’ ability to certify and then to restrict the right of individuals to strike through its draconian essential services legislation (a fight the government badly lost in the Supreme Court of Canada). This pretty much set the tone and we have had further labour-law changes restricting picketing on sidewalks. It’s not right, but one can see why some union at some point was going to at least attempt to push the boundaries of the law.

However, these changes came along after years of businesses claiming that unions received unfairly favoured treatment under the NDP that imposed the Crown construction tendering agreement (forcing both union and non-union contractors to pay union-level wages on government construction projects) and its most-available-hours act (which dictated to employers that its hiring of part-time workers had to be based on seniority lists).

Admittedly, finding the sweet spot that both affords precisely the correct amount of support for unions and for employers is a struggle everywhere. (For example, it’s worth noting that only Quebec and B.C. have legislation banning replacement workers.)

But it’s here in Saskatchewan where labour law seems most likely to swing with the government of the day. This is obviously a contributing factor and both sides need to recognize why it needs to stop. If the NDP respects business, surely that means a right to conduct its affairs without government intrusion. And if Premier Scott Moe respects workers, surely that means unionized oil workers as much as those working in the oilpatch.

So maybe it’s time for some Saskatchewan government some day to recognize that the law isn’t something to be played with to suit the day’s political objectives.