As MPs debated a government bill late Thursday forcing posties back to work, many wondered if such legislation signals tough times ahead for Canada's public-sector unions.
In recent years, the disparity between public versus private-sector employees has become a larger issue, with many resenting the former's unjustifiably cushy working conditions.
As the baby boom generation nears retirement, a gap has been growing between the two categories of worker. Stephen Harper understands that.
He understands that 80 per cent of public-sector employees have workplace pension plans, while just 25 per cent of private-sector employees do.
He knows that most who enjoy the plummier "defined-benefit" pensions, providing a guaranteed retirement income, are in the public sector.
And what of pension indexation -a perk bestowed primarily on workers in the public sector?
Meanwhile, most of the job losses that have been sustained since the 2008 recession have occurred in the private sector.
No wonder the posties -never a popular union -have had trouble rousing taxpayers to their cause, surely a factor in Harper's decision to move so aggressively against the union.
The Canadian Union of Postal Workers began their rotating strike action June 2, after which the Canada Post moved on June 14 to lock out its 50,000 employees. Almost immediately, Labour Minister Lisa Raitt served notice of her back-to-work bill, saying she hoped the gesture would prompt the federal Crown corporation and CUPW to settle on their own.
With a majority in the Commons, Conservatives had a big stick and opted to use it, knowing the public probably would be onside.
And not only is Ottawa forcing posties back to work, it's imposing a wage package that's less generous than Canada Post had initially offered the workers.
The bill mandates that a dispute over a proposed end to defined-benefit pensions for future posties will be subject to a mediation and arbitration process.
For New Democrats, of course, this is a red-meat issue important to their political base.
But Liberals too are opposing the back-to-work bill, with Grit MP Roger Cuzner remarking that Raitt "has sucker-punched organized labour in this country. Is that what we can expect to see over the course of the next four years?" Organized labour recognizes the push back for what it is -a bid by government to level the playing field between public and private sector workers, or what the unions like to call "a race to the bottom."
Canadian Auto Workers economist Jim Stanford called Raitt's initiative: "an unprecedented intrusion into free collective bargaining ... I am under no illusions about how this majority government would wield its power. But even I am shocked."
Meanwhile, Fred Wilson, assistant to the president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, warns: "Harper's legislation sends a strong message to Canadian labour. It is now the Canadian labour movement's challenge to either be put in its place, or to take its place and respond to Harper's abuse of power."
The unions are pitching the idea that they represent the front line, paving the way for better wages and working conditions for everyone: "Public sector unions protect the good life that we in Canada enjoy," asserts Jan Chaboyer, president of the Brandon & District Labour Council.
But a whole lot of Canadians in the private sector lately have been taking it on the chin. They've experienced layoffs, wage freezes and rollbacks, and the curtailment of some of their benefits.
And they suspect the public sector unions have been protecting 'the good life' that only the public sector employees enjoy, and that all Canadians must pay for.
Vancouver Sun
