blogcutter (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
blogcutter) wrote2023-04-20 02:53 pm
blogcutter) wrote2023-04-20 02:53 pm
Entry tags:
The PSAC Strike of 2023: Forward to the Past?
Well, yes and no. A lot has changed over the past 30-odd years. I participated in the strike of 1991. I'm now a federal retiree and member of the Retired Members Guild of PIPSC, the union I've belonged to for most of this century.
So what has changed since the general strike of 1991?
For one thing, the political climate is very different. Back in 1991, Brian Mulroney was the Prime Minister of Canada. Conservative governments were the order of the day in other major English-speaking countries too. The U.S. and the U.K. were still reeling from the effects of Reaganomics and Thatcherism and their new leaders were not much better. Today, Justin Trudeau is PM and while his sunny ways have given way to cloudier conditions, his continued leadership is to some extent at the mercy of our NDP leader as they (and all of us, I would argue) have a common interest in staving off Pierre Poilievre.
For another thing (well, two things actually) - technology and the pandemic have made remote work (or at least hybrid work) the rule rather than the exception for federal public servants.
Let's take the political climate first. Right-leaning governments generally disapprove of any sort of labour action. The usual attitude is something like:
After all we've done for them, how can they do this to us? How can they be so ungrateful?
They have no compunction about legislating their employees back to work with the stroke of a pen. Or in this day and age, with the click of a link. Of course, it all has to go through the messy business of Parliamentary democracy (which is perhaps not so democratic under our electoral rules) but a majority or near-majority government usually gets its own way eventually.
Then there's the fiscal restraint motive that typifies right-wing governments, making them averse to the idea of salary increases that even keep pace with the cost of living. But ironically, when it comes to their own employees, the government actually saves money during the strike itself. No salary dollars get paid to the striking employees, there's less wear and tear and overhead costs for the buildings and facilities. So they can let the strike go on for a bit, maybe throw workers a few crumbs from all the money they've saved, and order them back to work maintaining they've been patient long enough and more than generous in the end.
I certainly saw this with "Lyin' Brian" Mulroney and Gilles Loiselle (not-so-affectionately known as Weasel), who was the president of the Treasury Board at the time of the 1991 strike.
The Liberals know they can't get away with this kind of rhetoric. And certainly Jagmeet Singh would lose all credibility with the NDP and with his supporters if he were to try any Conservative style tactics.
So now let's talk about the progress of government technology over the decades, further accelerated by the imperatives of the pandemic.
Again, money was saved by the government as buildings sat empty or vastly under-occupied for three years. On the other hand private businesses, many of whom typically donate generously to Conservative coffers, lost out big-time when public servants weren't going out and hanging around them spending their money. Instead, that money was being spent online, often bypassing local and national businesses altogether.
The government's compromise(?) solution which seems to have satisfied no one was to decide that most public servants must be back in the office 2 or 3 days per week. But does the government genuinely even want that?
We've heard plenty of stories of workers who have dutifully returned to the office - or at least their former office BUILDING - only to be obliged to sit on the floor or in a broom closet or keep most of their belongings in a locker because their old office no longer exists!
So what's going to happen?
I doubt that there'll be any back-to-work legislation. I doubt that the strike will drag on for weeks on end. I think that after a few days of this, there will be a tentative deal reached at the bargaining table. A modest salary increase. Some deliberately vague wording around the whole question of telework, agreeing to keep the door open and respect the changing technological environment, operational requirements, worker preferences, blah blah blah. Then it will get voted on and ratified. The unhappy campers on both sides will reluctantly go back into the tent.
Life and work will go on. Both sides will have had their say but not much will have changed since the strike began.
Or, of course, I could be totally off-base in my prediction of the outcome.
So what has changed since the general strike of 1991?
For one thing, the political climate is very different. Back in 1991, Brian Mulroney was the Prime Minister of Canada. Conservative governments were the order of the day in other major English-speaking countries too. The U.S. and the U.K. were still reeling from the effects of Reaganomics and Thatcherism and their new leaders were not much better. Today, Justin Trudeau is PM and while his sunny ways have given way to cloudier conditions, his continued leadership is to some extent at the mercy of our NDP leader as they (and all of us, I would argue) have a common interest in staving off Pierre Poilievre.
For another thing (well, two things actually) - technology and the pandemic have made remote work (or at least hybrid work) the rule rather than the exception for federal public servants.
Let's take the political climate first. Right-leaning governments generally disapprove of any sort of labour action. The usual attitude is something like:
After all we've done for them, how can they do this to us? How can they be so ungrateful?
They have no compunction about legislating their employees back to work with the stroke of a pen. Or in this day and age, with the click of a link. Of course, it all has to go through the messy business of Parliamentary democracy (which is perhaps not so democratic under our electoral rules) but a majority or near-majority government usually gets its own way eventually.
Then there's the fiscal restraint motive that typifies right-wing governments, making them averse to the idea of salary increases that even keep pace with the cost of living. But ironically, when it comes to their own employees, the government actually saves money during the strike itself. No salary dollars get paid to the striking employees, there's less wear and tear and overhead costs for the buildings and facilities. So they can let the strike go on for a bit, maybe throw workers a few crumbs from all the money they've saved, and order them back to work maintaining they've been patient long enough and more than generous in the end.
I certainly saw this with "Lyin' Brian" Mulroney and Gilles Loiselle (not-so-affectionately known as Weasel), who was the president of the Treasury Board at the time of the 1991 strike.
The Liberals know they can't get away with this kind of rhetoric. And certainly Jagmeet Singh would lose all credibility with the NDP and with his supporters if he were to try any Conservative style tactics.
So now let's talk about the progress of government technology over the decades, further accelerated by the imperatives of the pandemic.
Again, money was saved by the government as buildings sat empty or vastly under-occupied for three years. On the other hand private businesses, many of whom typically donate generously to Conservative coffers, lost out big-time when public servants weren't going out and hanging around them spending their money. Instead, that money was being spent online, often bypassing local and national businesses altogether.
The government's compromise(?) solution which seems to have satisfied no one was to decide that most public servants must be back in the office 2 or 3 days per week. But does the government genuinely even want that?
We've heard plenty of stories of workers who have dutifully returned to the office - or at least their former office BUILDING - only to be obliged to sit on the floor or in a broom closet or keep most of their belongings in a locker because their old office no longer exists!
So what's going to happen?
I doubt that there'll be any back-to-work legislation. I doubt that the strike will drag on for weeks on end. I think that after a few days of this, there will be a tentative deal reached at the bargaining table. A modest salary increase. Some deliberately vague wording around the whole question of telework, agreeing to keep the door open and respect the changing technological environment, operational requirements, worker preferences, blah blah blah. Then it will get voted on and ratified. The unhappy campers on both sides will reluctantly go back into the tent.
Life and work will go on. Both sides will have had their say but not much will have changed since the strike began.
Or, of course, I could be totally off-base in my prediction of the outcome.