Let’s Talk About Scabs
When McGill University and the McGill University Non-Academic Certified Association stood before Quebec’s Labour Board last Thursday, it became evident that our province’s “anti-scab” laws, along with the power allotted to the unions that brought them into existence, are in dire need of a facelift.
MUNACA accused McGill of using replacement workers in the absence of striking employees, thus contravening Quebec legislation that prevents the hiring of replacement workers during a strike. The claim, in compliance with Quebec’s current legislation, is in fact a valid one—which is precisely the problem.
Quebec and British Columbia are currently the only Canadian provinces that have legislation barring the use of replacement workers during strikes. In 2004, Bill C-257, which would have created anti-scab legislation for the federal sector, was defeated in the House of Commons.
The fact that only two of 10 provinces have legislation that prevents the use of replacement workers during strikes, and that a bill that attempted to enshrine such legislation at the federal level was defeated, speaks to the shortcomings of such laws.
The unpopularity of this legislation suggests that the vast majority of Canadian legislatures, and by extension the Canadian people, feel that anti-scab legislation infringes on the freedoms of businesses and institutions to an unacceptable degree.
In the case of the current McGill support-workers strike, many tasks essential to the everyday running of the university would simply not be possible if it were not for the use and hiring of temporary replacement workers.
It seems ludicrous to me that our province’s legislation is such that it serves as a roadblock to the functionality of such an essential institution during this time of strike.
McGill has a responsibility to its students, faculty, and non-MUNACA employees to continue to function both as an academic institution and as a place of employment. If current Quebec labour legislation infringes on their right to do so, then evidently that legislation needs to be changed.
This issue is indicative of a series of severe problems with labour relations both in Quebec and in Canada as a whole. The union movement emerged from a history where power was disproportionately at the hands of employers. In more recent years, however, it seems to have become the opposite.
Now we are seeing MUNACA telling McGill University who they can and cannot hire. We are witnessing corrupt unions exercising almost complete control of Quebec’s construction industry. Many unions seem to have transformed from being the protectors of oppressed workers to the oppressors of almost everyone else.
We can change this by revising the way in which we look at labour disputes such as the one currently unfolding at McGill, though.
Theoretically, we need to start taking a common-sense approach to how we balance the rights of workers with those of businesses and institutions; especially those such as McGill, that provide such important services to the people of this province.
Practically, we need to oppose Quebec’s anti-scab legislation, if not because it impedes on the rights of businesses and institutions, then because it goes against our
