opinion
Although no details were public at press time, there was clearly some good news for farmers in the tentative agreement ending the Grain Services Union strike against Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
All Pool facilities were scheduled to be open Tuesday morning, or as soon thereafter as possible, increasing delivery opportunities for farmers.
Grain had already been moving fairly well during the strike, but having the entire system open again will also pay dividends to Pool member-owners through greater volumes, and thus cost efficiencies.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
It is also good news that Pool paycheques will once again be injected into the Saskatchewan economy, particularly for jobs in rural areas.
Longer-term benefits cannot be fully assessed until details of the agreement are released and it is known whether union members will ratify it.
But one potential long-term benefit was evident in the simple fact that the Pool and the Grain Services Union were able to reach at least a tentative agreement in direct talks, without the need for outside intervention.
Establishing a productive and co-operative business relationship between any company and any union requires that the two sides be able to communicate and bargain effectively even when tough issues are on the table.
Whatever their real or perceived faults might have been in past dealings, both sides showed leadership in achieving a directly negotiated settlement despite major differences on fundamental issues. And if they did it once, they can do it again.
By contrast, there is a view that one reason for west-coast labor problems is excessive reliance on arbitrators rather than direct bargaining.
Some people say there should have been some way to reach agreement without a strike, perhaps by locking all negotiators in a room.
That can probably never be proved true or false. Often, much time has to pass before attitudes change and there is a mutual genuine willingness to bargain. Yelling at one another 24 hours a day wouldn’t encourage agreement.
And sometimes, when major issues are at stake, one side or the other has to test the opposition’s resolve through strike, lockout or other action. The results can be messy and costly, but in the long term, such action may be healthier than having either side believe it could have won more by being tougher and more radical.
Meanwhile, all sorts of commentators will be seeking to characterize the agreement as either a union victory or a management victory. That debate may miss the whole point.
So far, it seems, the farmers won.
