A Vancouver-based conservative think tank last week warned the federal government against reintroducing labor law proposals it tried to push through the last parliament.
And the author of the Fraser Institute analysis argues that the government should drop proposals to protect export grain from being grounded at the West Coast by third-party strikes.
“There is no logical explanation for giving grain an exemption or a special status and not other large export commodities,” Frazil Mihlar, senior policy analyst, said in an Aug. 15 interview from Vancouver.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
“There is no justification other than it is political, not economic. It is simply political, to appease western grain farmers.”
The proposal to keep grain moving unless grain industry companies or unions are a direct party to a labor dispute was part of a major overhaul of the Canada Labor Code proposed by the Liberals in the last parliament.
The bill died without Senate approval when an early election was called at the end of April.
Reintroduce bill
Although labor minister Lawrence MacAuley has not made an announcement, agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief told the Canadian Federation of Agriculture board at the end of July that the re-elected Liberals will be reintroducing the bills left unapproved by the last parliament.
He was responding to a question which included reference to the labor code amendments.
Among their most controversial clauses was a proposal to put some limits on employers’ ability to hire replacement workers during strikes or lockouts. They also would require employers to give unions on organizing drives the names and addresses of off-site workers.
During earlier parliamentary hearings, employer groups complained the amendments were biased in favor of unions.
Last week, the Fraser Institute agreed.
More power to unions
Mihlar said the amendments could destabilize labor relations in federally regulated industries such as the grain sector by giving unions too much power.
“Unions would not be bargaining within the bounds of what I consider reasonable contract negotiations because everything would be tilted in their favor,” he said.
“The government is expecting exporters to do a trapeze act with one hand tied behind their backs. That is what these changes would do.”
He said that rather than give unions more power and then requiring them to move grain, it would be better to pass right-to-work legislation making union membership voluntary, making secondary picketing illegal and giving employers full rein to use replacement workers.
That would keep grain and other commodities moving, he said. “If you had those conditions, the economy would work better.”
But Mihlar said he does not support ending the right to strike in sectors like the grain industry. “I do not support the essential services model because you do not want to undermine the collective bargaining power of individuals, as long as it is voluntary.”
Tom Dufresne, president of the International Longshore and Laborers Union in Vancouver, sided with government plans.
He said his union supports reintroduction of the labor code amendments, with the protection for grain included.
“Farmers should not be penalized when they are not directly involved in the dispute,” he said.
“We supported and still support the proposal to keep the grain moving.”
