For What It’s Worth: ‘Anti-scab’ legislation gives advantage to unions they shouldn’t have

By Cash Moore on November 17, 2022.

Imagine you have a basement suite in your home. To earn a little extra cash you put it up for rent. You find a tenant who likes the place and they sign a lease agreement, agreeing to a set price.

After a while, the tenant begins making demands. They might say, “I want you to put a new floor in,” or new appliances. You refuse these demands and tell your tenant they are free to seek new living arrangements if they so choose. In response, your tenant refuses to pay rent and slanders you in public.

Now imagine a situation where there is a law that states you can temporarily remove the unruly tenant from the premises, but you are not allowed to find a new tenant until an agreement is reached with the current one. Essentially meaning that until you cave to your tenant’s demands, your basement suite will sit empty.

This fictional situation is becoming a reality in the unionized labour market. Last month, the federal government announced the ball is rolling to introduce “anti-scab” legislation for federally regulated industries. What this means is that when a union goes on strike, the employer will not be able to hire replacement workers.

The argument from unions is that the use of replacement workers puts unions at a disadvantage during negotiations.

This argument only holds water if the workers represented by the union can be considered replaceable. If the striking workers are as indispensable to the employer as the union claims, then replacement workers are simply a stopgap measure to keep operations going just enough to avoid the business from going belly up. If the striking workers are non-replaceable, then the firm still has a significant incentive to negotiate in good faith with the union, regardless of replacement workers.

However, if the workers are replaceable, then why should a business be forced to pay more for workers who are of equal value to ones that will work at a lower cost? In this scenario, yes, the unions are at a disadvantage, as they should be.

Anti-scab legislation handcuffs workers who want to work. Not every worker comes from a place of privilege where they can afford to participate in a strike and lose out on their paycheque. Many workers take pride in their work and are content with their compensation.

There should be no shame in crossing the picket line when a worker disagrees with a strike. Unfortunately, this new legislation will outlaw internal workers who want to continue their duties as well as external ones who are happy for the opportunity to work.

Employers commit an enormous amount of time, money and energy into their businesses. Employers are the ones that provide jobs, services, goods and wealth to our communities, not unions. Running a business is tough enough as it is, giving unions the ability to put a stranglehold on employers during labour negotiations is a net negative to our society.

Cash Moore is a political science student at the University of Alberta who is from Medicine Hat